THE DISAPPEARED: "Could it be Satan?" the Church Lady asked!

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2025

This may be a Night Which Was: With apologies, all in all, we've had a challenging day.

Briefly, let's be honest. It was a challenging first world day. 

People are struggling all over the world with much more serious challenges. That includes the people of Ukraine, who are, or so it would seem, currently being abandoned.

Today, we returned from our participation in ongoing medical science. Not too much later, our internet service went down.

When our Internet Service Provider goes down, you're never real sure it will ever come up. Once again, we'd call this as a first world problem. 

Elsewhere, as Lawrence O'Donnell described last night, children are starving around the globe because of the apparent mental illness of the fellow named [NAME WITHHELD].

Does anyone doubt that we the Americans may be caught in a web of some version or versions of mental illness ("mental disorder")? Granted, our "journalists" won't discuss this apparent state of affairs—but does anyone really think that this circumstance doesn't exist?

At this site, we've been rereading the 2020 bestseller by Mary L. Trump, PhD—a detailed and thoughtful book about the upbringing of her uncle, Donald J. Trump, and his four brothers and sisters.

We have said, again and again, that (severe) "mental illness/disorder" is, like serious physical illness, a tragic loss of human potential. We've been struck this week by the very sad story Mary Trump tells in her book.

(Pity the child, we've long suggested. Pity the child, even as you try to disarm the adult.)

That said, why did we ever go with "The Disappeared" as our tagline for this week? We were thinking of the disappeared clowns of the Fox News Channel, who our Blue elites have agreed to leave unreported and undiscussed. 

We were also thinking of the disappeared (possible) explanation for the sitting American president's ongoing assault on the world. He makes us flash on "The Boxer," we've said.

As of tomorrow, we expect to change our tag for the week to something derived from "The Week That Was." Yesterday, this is what the president said he plans to do tonight:

“TOMORROW NIGHT WILL BE BIG. I WILL TELL IT LIKE IT IS!”

Was that a promise or was that a threat? Needless to say, it arrived in nothing but capital letters. We advise you to pity the child.

As we noted yesterday. last Friday's Oval Office debacle was likely the start of a Week That Was. It had the look of the start of a week which might change the history of the modern world. 

Tonight, we'll see what the president says. As for us Blues, remember this:

In an array of deeply unfortunate ways, we worked hard to earn our way out.

Also, two key points: It's the greatest thing anyone has ever done in the realm of cable news. We refer to Lawrence O'Donnell's work with the good, decent kids of Malawi.

(Also, with their families.)

In our view, Lawrence has been extremely strong in the current unfortunate circumstance. Other children, children like those in Malawi, will be dying of starvation around the world.

Also this:

"Could it be Satan?" the Church Lady asked. Our answer, of course, is a no. In our view, the actual, unfortunate story seems far more tragic than that.

That said, we had planned to work with that framework today. We may revisit it by the end of the week. For today, the collapse of our ISP briefly hauled us down.

BREAKING: We won't be posting until a bit later!

 TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2025

Meanwhile, riddle us this: We're off very early this morning to address The Surgical Wound Which Would Not Heal.

For that reason, we won't be posting until this afternoon. Meanwhile, riddle us this news report in the New York Times:

What’s Behind Trump’s Love-Hate Relationship With Canada

[...]

As Mr. Trump prepares to push ahead with a new round of tariffs on the United States’ neighbors to the north and south, he has expressed a special brand of loathing for Canada. The bullying of a country whose most prominent stereotype is that its people are “nice” has led to political upheaval in Canada and created both consternation and speculation about why Mr. Trump wants to engage in a trade war with one of America’s biggest trading partners.

“I can’t quite figure it out,” said Stephen Moore, the Heritage Foundation economist and former adviser to Mr. Trump. “Whether it’s some kind of strategic leverage, I don’t know.”

Noting that there is “no love lost” between the president and Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Moore added: “With Trump, politics is personal.”

Mr. Trump has threatened to hit Mexico and Canada with 25 percent tariffs on all imports on Tuesday unless the countries do more to prevent migrants and drugs from flowing into the United States. On Saturday, the president picked another trade fight with Canada, this time over lumber.

Intrigue abounds in Canada about why Mr. Trump has repeatedly belittled a neighbor and threatened to destabilize its economy with tariffs, a process that has brought relations between the two countries to a low point not seen in decades.

Stephen Moore can't figure it out? That may not be a shocker!  But even Moore is prepared to admit that the behavior in question doesn't quite seem to make sense!

In fairness, has the commander really "expressed a special brand of loathing for Canada?" We don't know if he actually has—but in all the strange taunting of the past few months, it isn't real clear that he hasn't.

That Times report fashions Trump as a person engaged in "the bullying of a country whose most prominent stereotype is that its people are 'nice.' "

Is there something strange about that stance? Also, is there a possible (type of) explanation for this behavior—a possible type of explanation which has been disappeared?

What might be going on with President Trump? And have our journalists agreed on this rule of the road:

With respect to one obvious possibility, don't askand by all means don't tell!

Why would someone be gripped by a loathing for Canada? Has an obvious type of possibility joined the ranks of The Disappeared?

This afternoon: Our Week That Was seems to get worse


MONDAY: From zero to fury in a matter of moments!

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2025

What happened in the Oval: Are we in the midst of a Weeke That Was—an historically serious moment?

Concerning that, time will tell. As to what actually happened last week in the Oval, we think a lengthy report by CNN included an admirable degree of detail.

For the record, the actual session on the Oval Office lasted almost exactly 50 minutes. We thought this part of CNN's report was basically accurate, and we found it especially striking:

Inside the 139 minutes that upended the US-Ukraine alliance

[...]

For the first 40 minutes of their talks, Trump did not evince outward bitterness toward Zelensky, instead discussing the minerals deal they were planning to sign later in the day.

Indeed, upstairs in the East Room a long wooden table had been prepared for the signing ceremony, with four chairs ready for the signatories.

It was never to be.

Ignore the time frame stated in the headline. "139 minutes" is the amount of time which elapsed from the moment Zelensky arrived at the White House to the moment he drove away.

As for the Oval Office meeting itself, that lasted almost exactly 50 minutes. You can confirm that fact on the videotape which appears at C-Span's actual site—a piece of tape which didn't seem to be working correctly when we linked elsewhere on Sunday.

At any rate, right there in its lengthy report, CNN says this:

For the first 40 minutes of their talks, Trump did not evince outward bitterness toward Zelensky.

Truer words were never spoken! In fact, we think that passage actually understates the mellow of the ongoing situation that day, along with the suddenness with which the Friday event melted down:

For the first 40 minutes of their talks, Trump didn't evince outward bitterness toward Zelensky? In fact, we'd say the actual number was higher than that, and we'd say that President Trump didn't seem to display any discomfort at all. 

Looking at the C-Span tape, we'd say that President Trump shows no discomfort of any kind until the 43-minute mark.  In fact, it's Vice President "JD" Vance who jumps in at the 40-minute mark with the first sign that someone is unhappy with the way the event is going. 

At that point, Trump says there will be one more question—and just like that, up jumps Vance! By the 41-minute mark, Vance is visibly angry. He's now scolding and lecturing the visiting president about what he perceives to be Zelensky's vast amount of disrespect.

As for President Trump, he doesn't jump in until the 43-minute mark. Only then does he seem to be angry, although he does keeps getting louder and angrier from that fatal moment on.

Repeating:

Right through the first forty-plus minutes, we see no sign that President Trump is unhappy with President Zelensky's attitude or behavior. He doesn't even seem to be bothered by all the eyerolls—by the deeply disturbing eyerolls which in fact never occurred.

The two presidents were, in fact, adopting different points of view about one significant matter. Zelensky was saying that Ukraine will need security guarantees from Europe and the United States to guard against Putin's inevitable decision to violate any ceasefire.

In real time, Trump didn't seem to want to do that. But for 43 minutes, there was no indication that he was about to blow his stack. He's emotionally normal through 43 minutes—and then, the volcano erupts.

To our eye, that's strange and oddly aberrant behavior. But then, what else is new?

Our question would be this:

What could possibly lie behind such erratic behavior? 

What lies behind such behavior? You'll never see a certain type of possibility examined within Blue America's press. Those orgs and those journalists have all agreed that a certain obvious possibility must never be discussed or explained or evaluated.

The behavior by Trump struck us as erratic. Why does this happen with such regularity?

Within the press, the watchword is clear:

Whatever you do, don't ask!

THE DISAPPEARED: What lunacy lies in the heart of man?

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2025

We're now in a Week That Was: "What evil lurks in the heart of man? Only The Shadow knows!"

In fairness, that wasn't exactly the slogan. The slogan in question belonged to a long-running radio show, way back in the days before TV came along.

The radio show came to be called The Shadow. The leading authority on such shows offers a thumbnail backdrop:

The Shadow

The Shadow is a fictional character created by American magazine publishers Street & Smith and writer Walter B. Gibson. Originally created to be a mysterious radio show narrator, and developed into a distinct literary character in 1931 by Gibson, The Shadow has been adapted into other forms of media...

The Shadow debuted on July 31, 1930, as the mysterious narrator of the radio program Detective Story Hour, which was developed to boost sales of Street & Smith's monthly pulp Detective Story Magazine...

On September 26, 1937, The Shadow, a new radio drama based on the character as created by Gibson for the pulp magazine, premiered with the story "The Death House Rescue", in which The Shadow was characterized as having "the hypnotic power to cloud men's minds so they cannot see him." In the magazine stories, The Shadow did not become literally invisible.

The introductory line from the radio adaptation of The Shadow—"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"—spoken by actor Frank Readick, has earned a place in the American idiom. These words were accompanied by an ominous laugh.

The radio show came to an end in December 1954. It sounds like it was good solid crackpot fun, a bit like our contemporary political / journalistic discourse.

At present, we Americans seem to be locked in what will turn out to be a major Week That Was. That turn of phrase comes from the name of a TV show, That Was the Week That Was, which was hot for a couple of years back in the mid-1960s.

This nation's current probable Week That Was got its start last Friday. On that occasion, President Zelensky's incessant eye-rolling, along with the way he sat in his chair, caused two major American officials to melt down as TV cameras rolled.

As we noted yesterday, that story was told by Karoline Leavitt, but also by an assortment of tools on the Fox News Channel. 

Full disclosure! When we examined the videotape, we couldn't see the many eyerolls. 

In fact, we didn't see even one! That only suggests how slippery President Zelensky was as he engaged in this conduct.

"What evil lurks in the heart of man?" For ourselves, we'd suggest staying away from such triggering terms as "evil." We'd suggest a transition to a slogan like this:

What sources of incomprehension lie in the hearts of us humans? What sources of possible mental dysfunction?

As it turns out. we humans aren't "the rational animal" at every turn of the wheel. Especially at times of vast tribal division, we may tend to believe the darnedest things, if we might be allowed to steal a phrase from that other old TV show:

House Party (radio and TV show)

[...]

The show's best-remembered segment was "Kids Say the Darndest Things," in which [Art] Linkletter interviewed schoolchildren between the ages of five and ten.

Five-year-olds used to say the darndest things. Today, we American adults are strongly inclined to believe such implausible statements!

We adults are inclined to believe the darndest things! As it turns out, that's even true in Red America, as it is over here with us Blues.

We Blues were sure that President Biden was still just as sharp as a tack. We didn't bat an eye when our leaders told us that the southern border was secure.

Those costs of living were all in our heads—or perhaps in the heads of The Others. We even managed to cruise right through the least plausible manifestations of the cultural impulse which came to be known by the unflattering term, "Woke."

Some of those manifestations proved an indisputable point:

There is no apparently good intention which can't be unwisely pursued.

Surely everyone understands that—but at the time, we plowed on through. We Blues couldn't see what everyone else was able to see. 

Last November, we paid the price, with Candidate Trump squeaking out a narrow win, despite his historic lack of popularity among the electorate.

Sources of incomprehension are widespread within the hearts and the heads of us humans! That doesn't mean that we're bad people. According to an array of experts, it means that we're people people, wired as humans are.

Last Friday, right there in the Oval, the latest episode flared. And sure enough, here's what happened next:

As of Saturday night, Joey Johnny Jones was willing to tell viewers of The Big Weekend Show that it was the incessant eye-rolling by Zelensky which triggered the meltdown by Trump and Vance.

Did Jones really believe what he was saying? When Lisa Boothe rushed to agree, did she believe what he'd said|?

We can't answer those questions! But millions of people will believe that the eyerolls did it, in part thanks to what they saw Jones say.

It used to be the butler who did it. Last Friday, to prove our larger point, it turned out that the eyerolls did!

Our larger point is this:

It isn't just we Blue Americans who believe the darnedest things. Over there in Red America, our enemies are inclined to traffic in apparent incomprehension too!

That brings us to the current apparent Week That Was, which got its start last Friday. It started with the meltdown caused by The Body Language Which Wasn't. 

Tomorrow night, right there in the House chamber, the week will continue along with President Trump's major address. It won't be called The State of the Union Address, but that's what it basically is. 

What's the president going to say at that time? Only The Shadow actually knows, but we'll guess that he may not play nice.

In the course of this week, we ourselves are going to focus on The Disappeared. By that, we refer to the disappeared possible explanations for the serial acts of apparent madness which now crowd the American scene.

To what acts of apparent incomprehension do we refer? We refer, of course, to reports about the eyerolls which didn't seem to occur, but also to such acts of apparent madness as these:

Sad! As reported by Mediaite, Joe Rogan has now suggested that CNN aired the speech by Candidate Trump in Butler, Pa. because CNN somehow knew that he would be shot at that day.

Yes, that's what he suggested. What impulse in favor of incomprehension lurks in the heads of us humans? This level of impulse:

This same musclebound flyweight is now one of the leading "influencers" on the American scene! And no, it doesn't end there:

When Rogan suggested that CNN knew, Elon Musk seemed to agree. After that, along came the perpetually furious and wealthy Bill Ackman, and he bought into it too!

These people are all extremely "successful." Beyond that, there seems to be very little they won't suggest or even believe.

In other words, it isn't just Us! The humans over in Red America believe the darnedest things too!

Many parts of the story from last Friday haven't yet appeared on the scene. For example, this:

What was actually in the (revised) minerals deal Zelensky and Trump were supposed to sign that day? 

That seems like an amazingly basic question. As is the norm in our highly sub-rational journalistic discourse, we've seen few attempts to spell that out. For a detailed report from one think tank, you can just click here.

That question has largely been disappeared and so has the possible answer. In our view, though, the principal disappearance involves the answer to the question Scott Pelley asked last night.

Hollywood was offering its annual low-IQ presentation as 60 Minutes aired. Some of Americans, Red and Blue, still watch that annual drivel.

At 7 p.m. in the east, 60 Minutes was competing with the preternatural childishness of Tinseltown itself. But here's one of the questions Pelley asked, along with what he was told:

PELLEY (3/2/25): In these last two weeks we've heard [President Trump] call Zelenskyy a dictator, we've heard him say it was Ukraine that started the war. What is going on?

MCMASTER: Well, President Trump, as we all know, has a tendency to say outlandish things. Sometimes that's to shake the situation up and create some sense of change. But often times what he doesn't consider is how his words could impede his own agenda, or how his words actually can cut against U.S. interests or be received abroad in a way that's much different from the way his political supporters will receive those words in the United States. And so those words were damaging, damaging to the psyche of the Ukrainians. You know, war really is a contest of wills, and I think what you're seeing is Donald Trump delivering a series of body blows to the Ukrainians in a way that could affect, you know, their will to continue to fight.

"What's going on?" Pelley asked. Marvin Gaye is no longer with us, but you can see the way McMaster answered Pelley's question.

For the record, not everyone will agree with that answer. But as Pelley had already explained, here's who he was speaking with:

PELLEY: H.R. McMaster knows. He was national security adviser in Trump's first term. He's a retired Army general, senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, and a CBS News contributor.

That's what Pelley said. In this case, it isn't just The Shadow.  According to Pelley, McMaster also knows!

You can see how General McMaster answered Pelley's question. All this week, we're going to muse on the basics of alleged modern medical science which were absent from what the general said.

We humans! We're actually rather primitive thinkers. All in all, in many arenas, we aren't "the rational animal."

What sources of possible incomprehension may lurk in the minds of us humans?

These sources seem to be widespread on the left and even on the right. These sources are routinely disappeared in our modern discourse, but we disappear them at our own peril.

For the record, none of this is going to change. It's much too late for that,

Meanwhile, w may have embarked on a Week That Was at the present moment. Everything you read and hear will have been edited so you won't be required to think about the possible factors which have been disappeared.

We humans believe the darnedest things. Some people may possibly understand why we do, but by common human agreement, those people have been disappeared.

"What's going on?" Scott Pelley asked. One perfectly plausible answer has been disappeared!

Tomorrow: Though later in the day: One caller to C-Span sounds off!


SUNDAY: Fox News says he should apologize...

SUNDAY, MARCH 2, 2025

...for the way he sat in his chair: Bright and early, at 6:07 a.m., Peter Doocy gave voice to the mandated messaging of his corporate owners.

In his normal role, Doocy serves as the Fox News Channel's "senior White House correspondent." This morning, he was serving as the (temporary) third friend on the four-hour corporate messaging program, Fox & Friends Weekend.

Five minutes into the program, Doocy delivered the mail on behalf of his owners. Perhaps a bit remarkably, this is what he said:

DOOCY (3/2/25): Nothing is going to happen until he apologizes for the way that he acted in the Oval Office. Nothing!

And he keeps— He's now on a world tour where he will not just stand there in front of a microphone and say, "I apologize, I accept responsibility, for my actions in the Oval."

Thus spoke Peter Doocy; the other friends quickly agreed. Thus spoke the senior correspondent—and so speaks the Fox News Channel.

Pull out his eyes, apologize—but Zelensky refuses to do it! For many people, a fairly obvious question might arise at this point:

We're told that Zelensky needs to apologize—but apologize for what? For what specific "actions in the Oval" is he supposed to acknowledge his guilt?

Yesterday, we actually spent a chunk of time trying to puzzle that out. For the record, it seems that the White House has settled on the answer, as described by CNBC in this news report:

Trump objected to Zelenskyy’s tone and body language in Oval Office clash, White House says

President Donald Trump found the tone and body language of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksyy objectionable during an Oval Office meeting that exploded into a loud argument on Friday, the White House told CNBC.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said there was not a specific thing that Zelenskyy said in the Oval Office to Trump or Vice President JD Vance that the president objected to, but the tone and manner in which he said it.

Leavitt said Friday that Zelenskyy—whose country was invaded three years ago by Russia at the direction of its president, Vladimir Putin—was folding his arms, rolling his eyes and sitting in a way that indicated a lack of respect.

Leavitt also pointed out that Zelenskyy called Vance “JD,” instead of “Mr. Vice President,” during the fiery exchange, which was televised in front of reporters in the Oval Office.

As it turned out, it wasn't some specific thing Zelensky actually said. It was the gentleman's body language, including the way he sat in his chair.

Zelensky had been rolling his eyes, plus he'd been folding his arms. It was these elements of his body language which eventually set Trump and Vance off. 

 If you believe CNBC, that's what Leavitt said. Anthropologically, we would offer this:

When we humans reach "peak tribal war," almost any negative characterization of The Oher will do. An authority figure's characterizations will be accepted as convincing—indeed, as gospel—by the furious members of the angry tribe.

Full disclosure! According to CNBC, Leavitt said that Zelensky had signaled his disrespect in several other ways. The report continues as shown:

The clash occurred when Zelenskyy challenged the idea that Russia could be trusted to honor the terms of any peace deal that would be reached through diplomacy. Vance then accused the Ukrainian leader of being “disrespectful” by “trying to litigate” the terms of such a deal in the Oval Office.

Press secretary Leavitt said that White House officials were also annoyed that Zelenskyy did not wear a suit during his visit Friday, which abruptly ended with a scheduled news conference and meal both canceled after the Oval Office blow-up.

When CNBC noted that the White House did not appear to have a problem with top Trump advisor Elon Musk recently appearing in the Oval Office next to the president wearing a t-shirt and a baseball cap, Leavitt said that was different because the billionaire Tesla CEO is not the leader of a “sovereign nation.”

Trump earlier Friday had greeted Zelenskyy outside the White House by saying, “Oh look, you’re all dressed up.”

Muskwear YES, Zelenskywear NO! At times of peak tribal division, almost any distinction will do.

Yesterday, messengers on the Fox News Channel recited Leavitt's messaging. Last evening, at 7:06 p.m., it fell to Joey Johnny Jones to perform the reading of script.

Jones was co-hosting on The Big Weekend Show, one of the dumbest programs in the history of TV "news." The program features four co-hosts, each of whom will agree with every word the other co-hosts have said.

The program is so preternaturally dumb that Fox has now made it a two-hour show. Early in last night's second hour, Jones told viewers this:

JONES (3/1/25): Zelensky still hasn't apologized for what Trump calls "disrespect." But according to someone inside the room, what really set the fireworks off was Zelensky's body language. Apparently, thirty minutes of head-shaking and eye-rolling was just too much for President Trump and V.P. Vance. 

"According to someone inside the room," Trump and Vance had managed to tolerate "thirty minutes of head-shaking and eye-rolling" from their horrible guest. 

Finally, though, the body language turned out to be "just too much!" It was just too much even for them!

That's according to someone inside the room. As he continued, Jones explained why some people mistakenly thought that Trump and Vance behaved rather badly as the session neared its end:

JONES (continuing directly): Lisa [Boothe], I don't know if you've gone back and looked at the whole forty minutes. I had to do it, because people on X started pointing out that the majority of people in this country that are reacting to this strongly only saw that last ten minutes, maybe, of a forty-minute press conference where Zelensky was eye-rolling, body language, the whole time.

The people who thought Trump and Vance behaved badly hadn't seen the full event! They hadn't seen the initial thirty minutes of incessant eye-rolling, as Jones apparently did when he went back looked at the full tape for himself.

Instantly, Boothe agreed. As she did, here's what the chyron said:

BAD BODY LANGUAGE
ZELENSKYY DISRESPECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP & VP VANCE

Mandated message delivered! Quickly, let's summarize:

According to Jones, many people were reacting to the last ten minutes of Friday's event—to the part of the event where Trump and Vance finally melted down.

According to Jones, those people hadn't seen the first thirty minutes of the event—the part of the session where Zelensky engaged in "eye-rolling" and "[bad] body language" the whole time.

For the record, Jones is very "down home." At one time, he struck us as instinctively honest.

Last night, we were struck by his presentation. Here's why we were surprised:

In fact, we had already watched the videotape of the entire event. We'd been looking for all the eye-rolling that was described in CNBC's report. 

We'd already watched the whole forty minutes—and we hadn't spotted a single instance! On this C-Span videotape, you can give it a try yourself.

Pull out his eyes, apologize! As we noted yesterday, this scary demand was initially made of the very young James Joyce. Over the past forty-eight hours, every messenger in the Fox News / Trump White House universe has been insisting that Zelensky should apologize too.

Zelensky needs to apologize—but what should he apologize for? Right there on the Fox News Channel, Jones and Doocy spelled it out, and the other tools all played along.

He should apologize for his body language—for the way he sat in his chair! He should apologize for the thirty minutes of eye-rolls—for the eye-rolls which don't seem to be there!

Go ahead—search the tape! See if you can spot a single instance where Zelensky rolls his eyes.

 According to Jones, he did it all through the lengthy event. Finally, it was just too much, even for Trump and Vance! 

Has Joey Jones sold his soul to the gods—to the people who sign his checks? In answer to that sensible question, we will only say this:

This bullshit flows all day and all night on the Fox News Channel. Can a very large modern nation really expect to survive this system of corporate deception?

We're inclined to think that the answer is no. That said, Blue America's elites refuse to report or comment on this behavior.

It's a gong-show at the Fox News Channel—an imitation of life. It's a remarkable act of avoidance by the well-schooled elites Over Here.

SATURDAY: The war is over, and the war has been lost!

SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 2025

The Vances were already present: Sometimes, cultural schisms come into being—cultural schisms which cut too deep to be resolved in any short-term way.

These schisms may lead to wars. Sometimes the wars are military in nature. Sometimes the wars are political or cultural. 

As of this very morning, we'd say the ongoing war between the Red and Blue American nations is at long last officially over. We'd also say that our own Blue America has lost. 

We lost the war last November when the "landslide" numbers shown below came in. For the record, we Blues had been doing our best to lose this war for several years before that:

Nationwide popular vote, 2024
Candidate Trump (R): 77,302,580 (49.80%)
Candidate Harris (D): 75,017,613 (48.32%)

Those seem to be the official numbers. They're offered by the FEC. At its own site, the leading authority agrees.

No, that isn't a landslide! As far as we know, the winning candidate has actually stopped using that inaccurate term. On the other hand, he didn't win "by millions and millions of votes," the claim he made yesterday right there in the Oval Office. 

In our view, yesterday's claim is also bogus. But to the victors go the spoils, and the war which was being fought within this country was a war of The Information Age.

That war was, and that war remains, an information / Storyline war.

The commander won by less than 1.5 points, but the fact is, he did win—and on that day, the die was cast. It led to yesterday's event in in the Oval Office. It also led to this summary  by Rachel Campos-Duffy, offered at 6:18 this morning on an official show of Red America, Fox & Friends Weekend:

CAMPOS-DUFFY (3/1/25): In the end, I think what's remarkable is that we have a president who's willing to bring about world peace. Man! If he doesn't get the Nobel Peace Prize after this, that thing means nothing.

Peter Doocy quickly agreed. At that point, it was on to a different topic.

That account strikes us as daft—almost as a form of madness. But the other side won the war.

The other side did win! As a result, the winning candidate is now dismantling large parts of the federal government. He's also dismantling large parts of American policy. 

As one example, in all likelihood, NATO is on the way out.

In Blue America, we worked hard, in the past four years, to generate this outcome. It started with the election of President Biden, which seemed to be a reprieve at the time.

At the time, it seemed to be a reprieve. But things spiraled downward from there.

For today, we want to advance one basic point. Here it is:

At a certain point, a schism will have become so vast that it can't be "discussed," negotiated or resolved between the warring parties in anything like the short run.

At a certain point, one side has won and the other has lost! It's pointless to continue to think that differences in viewpoint and messaging can still be resolved. 

At some point, one side has lost! After yesterday morning's events, that's plainly where matters stand. 

"The day of his death was a dark cold day." That's what Auden wrote.

To our reckoning, yesterday was also a dark cold day. But with respect to Auden's assertion, W. B. Yeats was still dead.

With respect to yesterday's events, Red American characterization of those events strike us as something akin to a type of madness. In the larger sense, we think of the deal which lay at the heart of yesterday's dispute in the following simplified way:

A guy was prepared to pay a certain price for a security guard to be positioned outside his hardware store. 
But when he actually signed the contract which obligated him to pay that price, he learned that there would be no security guard involved in the deal!

That's roughly the way it looks to us. Spokespersons in Red America are going to tell the story in a vastly different way—and their agents are currently in full control, especially on the international front. They're changing so many things so quickly that no one can hope to keep up.

Citizens in Red America are going to hear that other account of yesterday's events. At this late date, there is no point in trying to reach some sort of agreement, across the two Americas, as to what "really" occurred.

On Blue America's cable news channels, they won't be telling us that. As is the case with the Fox News Channel, those channels still have a product to sell. 

On the other hand, it's also true that many people at Blue America's channels may not realize that our own side has lost

In The Sixth Sense, the Bruce Willis character doesn't yet know that he's dead. At present, that's pretty much the way it is here in our own Blue America. 

According to experts, we humans are wired to have a hard time understanding that wars have been lost. Also, when very unusual events occur, we humans will often have a very hard time seeing what has happened. 

So it was in The Emperor's New Clothes, and so it is in the current situation.

At such times, we may be helped to see more clearly if we can find parallels in the works of literature:

Over the course of the past year, we've suggested that you consider the cataclysmic "night assault" which is prefigured in the Iliad. We've also noted Camus' account of the way the fictional townsfolk of the fictional Oran fail to see that a plague is underway in their city, even after the visible signs are entirely clear.

Regarding yesterday's Oval Office events, we'll offer two parallels from literature. To be clear, these scenes from literature capture the way those events looked to us. There is no point, at this late date, trying to influence Campos-Duffy or the people who stand in her thrall.

We start with the scene from the film Wiseguys where the Joe Pesci character returns to a bar to settle a score with a character by whom he feels he has been insulted. 

He attacks the guy and knocks him down. As soon as he has his victim on the ground, the De Niro character joins in. Two (2) guys are now kicking the victim as he lies on the ground!

For us, we flashed on that famous scene as we watched yesterday's events. That's how it looked to us.

This morning, we also thought of the opening page of James Joyce's autobiographical novel, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Yesterday, to our eye, an officious vice president jumped in to insist that President Zelensky apologize for an imagined offense.  That's how it looked to us.

Meanwhile, are we all just toys of the gods? When we turned to Joyce's novel, we were surprised by one part of the passage we had flashed on. 

In this early passage, Joyce is characterizing his life as a very young child. Presumably, "Dante" is the way the very young child understands the name of his aunt.

You can peruse the full passage here:

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

[...]

Uncle Charles and Dante clapped. They were older than his father and mother but uncle Charles was older than Dante...Dante gave him a cachou every time he brought her a piece of tissue paper.

The Vances lived in number seven. They had a different father and mother. They were Eileen’s father and mother. When they were grown up he was going to marry Eileen. He hid under the table. His mother said:

—O, Stephen will apologise.

Dante said:

—O, if not, the eagles will come and pull out his eyes.—

Pull out his eyes,
Apologise,

Apologise,
Pull out his eyes.

Apologise,
Pull out his eyes,

Pull out his eyes,
Apologise.

We Irish! But so it allegedly went.

Pull out his eyes, apologise! That's a scene which flashed for us in the course of yesterday's tag-team mugging.  

That's a scene which flashed for us. There's no point in trying to convince Campos-Duffy or the other friends that something like that occurred. 

By now, our own Blue America has plainly lost the messaging / narrative / information war. The other side is very much in power. 

What do you do when a war has been lost? First, you have to train yourself to see that the loss has actually happened.

Meanwhile, are we all just a joke of the gods—a stage play constructed for their amusement? 

We certainly didn't remember this fact. But when we looked at the opening page of Joyce's novel, "the Vances" were already present!

The Vances were already there, even way back then! The Vances were already present as a mob ganged up on Joyce and tried to make him apologize for having done nothing wrong.

Are we secretly just a joke of the gods? As we seek the comforts and the insights of literature, did Homer get that part right?


FRIDAY: A grim situation seems to obtain!

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2025

Commander shouts and fumes: Is it possible that Vladimir Putin is getting tired of all the winning?

We start with the pair of headlines which have just appeared atop the front page of the online New York Times:

Trump-Zelensky Meeting Turns Into a Shouting Match

'You Either Make a Deal or We Are Out,' Trump Tells Ukrainian Leader

Those are not good headlines. 

The dual headline shown below also doesn't seem good. Online, it sits atop a report which appeared in this morning's print editions:

Trump Says Canada and Mexico Tariffs Will Go Into Effect Next Week
The president also said he would impose an additional 10 percent tariff on China as he tries to force other countries to take more action on drug shipments.

Question! Should we all apologize and tell the commander that it actually is the Gulf of America? That it has been all along?

At this point, we turn to a second question: Is it possible that something is "wrong" with President Trump? 

We know! Mainstream journalists have persistently agreed that they must never wonder or ask. 

Still, as that question floats in the air, we return to some of the unusual things Trump said at Wednesday's cabinet meeting. In this morning's report, we posted one part of this chunk:

REPORTER (2/27/28: Mr. President, have you just made a decision on what level you'll seek on tariffs in the European Union?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We have made a decision. We'll be announcing it very soon, and it'll be 25%, generally speaking, and that'll be on cars and all of the things. And European Union is a different case than Canada, different kind of case. They've really taken advantage of us in a different way...

Now, I love the countries of Europe. I guess I'm from there at some point a long time ago, right? But indirectly—pretty directly too, I guess. But I love the countries of Europe. I love all countries, frankly, all different. 

But the European Union's been—it was formed in order to screw the United States. I mean, look, let's be honest. The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it. And they've done a good job of it. But now I'm president.

REPORTER: What will happen if these countries or the EU retaliate?

TRUMP: They can't. I mean, they can try...They can try, but the numbers can never equal what ours, because we could go off. We are the pot of gold, we're the one that everybody wants. And they can retaliate, but it cannot be a successful retaliation because we just go cold turkey, we don't buy anymore. And if that happens, we win.

If the Euros try that, we get the win! For now, could it be Putin who's winning?

"The European Union was formed to screw the United States?" As far as we know, you shouldn't assume that any of the statistical claims in that full presentation are accurate. But that assessment of the EU's foundational purpose doesn't sound like a very good sign.

The cabinet meeting crawled with factual claims by President Trump which have been debunked a million times. That doesn't seem like a very good sign—and journalists are still failing to treat this relentless trafficking of widely discounted factual claims as a stand-along point of concern which ought to rate stand-alone coverage on a daily basis.

Then too, there's what we saw Tim Miller say on yesterday's Deadline: White House. 

We've never seen anyone refer to the possibility that Musk may be exhibiting some sort of problem with drugs, but that's a possibility to which Miller alluded.

We have no idea if that speculation is accurate. On the other hand, we have no way of knowing it isn't.

Long ago, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, the Yale psychiatrist, said this was going to happen. In an assortment of ways, she was eventually shown the door.

She wasn't allowed to raise such concerns. As for ourselves, we continue to recommend pity and concern for people who may somehow be afflicted. That said, is it possible that Dr. Lee possibly got it right way back when this spiral began?


CHARADES: Variety calls Gutfeld! "an alternate universe!"

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2025

Top org (almost) gets it right: As we've noted, Gutfeld! isn't a late night show. It also isn't a comedy show.

Technically, Gutfeld! is a (mainly) primetime show. It actually airs before prime time all up and down the west coast. 

Gutfeld! is also a show which appears on the nation's most-watched "cable news" channel. But no, it isn't a news show. At its fairly obvious heart, Gutfeld! is a corporate propaganda show. 

It's an astoundingly stupid propaganda show which hides behind comedy elements.

In fairness, who know? Variety's Tatiana Siegel may not be hugely familiar with the Gutfeld! program. That may explain how she (or her editor) could have come up with this ludicrous thumbnail account of what the program does

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

[...]

Gutfeld differs significantly from the [late night network comedy] field in tone...“Gutfeld!” is a closer match to Bill Maher’s old ABC show “Politically Incorrect,” with co-hosts Kat Timpf and Tyrus helping to anchor conversations that frequently rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of “The View.”

Belated full disclosure! We ourselves made six award-winning appearances on Maher's original show. We have our collection of (free-of-charge) Politically Incorrect caps to establish our role as a founding commentator.

That said, Siegel's account of what occurs on Gutfeld! comes straight outta Fantasyland. 

Timpf and Tyrus have indeed been regular co-hosts on the program. That said, do the program's (pseudo) conversations "rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of The View?"

That statement was crafted in LaLa Land. Consider the first "conversation" which occurred on last night's Gutfeld! 

As always, the evening's charade began with the selection of panelists. Timpf has been away on maternity leave. Tyrus, the former professional "wrestler," has merely been away, apparently on his current comedy tour.

Normally, Timpf and Tyrus fill two of the four panelist chairs. Last night, believe it or not, this was the panelist lineup:

Gutfeld! panelists, 2/27/25
Andrew Gruel: American chef and television personality
Charly Arnolt: Sports broadcaster and television personality for OutKick
Kennedy: Libertarian political commentator [and] radio personality
George Santos:  Former politician and convicted felon

We're offering the thumbnail descriptions penned by the leading authority. And yes, it was actually that George Santos who sat on the panel last night.

The program had assembled three "personalities" and one felon—one expelled former member of Congress. They'd be asked to offer their "takes" on the evening's selection of topics. 

Needless to say, all four would agree with every word the program's host tossed out.

It didn't take long to get to the nightly "ribbing!" At 10:04 p.m., to cite one example, one early bit of "ribbing" was directed at "the skin stretched across Nancy Pelosi's face." 

That came at the very start of the host's nightly issue-based monologue. In his opening two or three minutes, he had already offered a string of jokes about the way women suffer from cramps. They also take too long to get ready to leave the house and they travel with too much luggage.

From there, the host proceeded to a joke about another standard topic—about the way Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who's way too fat, completely stinks up adjoining rooms when he uses the bathroom. 

As the host continued, he ribbed Bill Clinton for having "ruined Monica Lewinsky's best interview dress."  He ribbed Kris Jenner because of the fact that her former husband now goes by the first name of Kaitlan. 

Mercifully, at 10:03 Eastern, his brief string of opening jokes ended with this:

GUTFELD (2/27/25): According to the Daily Mail, JFK had a secret gay lover.

Big deal! So did Michelle Obama! 

[PHOTO OF MICHELLE OBAMA]

AUDIENCE: APPLAUSE

GUTFELD: If one of those doesn't get me fired, I'm safe!

Was that final joke supposed to imply that Barack Obama is gay?

On its face, the meaning of the joke wasn't clear. More often, Gutfeld likes to offer jokes based on the premise that Michelle Obama is actually a man.

This happens on a nightly basis as the Fox News Channel opens the can at 10 p.m. (That's 7 p.m. on the coast.) According to Siegel (or perhaps according to her editor), Greg Gutfeld is simply "ribbing the obese and the easily triggered" when he cranks out this nightly fare.

Last night, it was what happened during his subsequent 'issue monologue" which defined the evening's disorder. President Trump had made some strange remarks during Wednesday's cabinet meeting. We refer to such unusual statements as these:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/26/26): Now, I love the countries of Europe. I guess I'm from there at some point a long time ago, right? But indirectly, pretty directly too, I guess. 

But I love the countries of Europe. I love all countries, frankly, all different. But the European Union's been—it was formed in order to screw the United States. 

I mean, look, let's be honest, the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That's the purpose of it. And they've done a good job of it, but now I'm president.

Really? The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States? 

Stating the obvious, nether Gutfeld himself, nor any of the TV / radio personalities who sat in last night's panelist chairs, are qualified, in any imaginable way, to evaluate such an unusual remark.

Having said that, so what! This is the way this very strange person reacted after playing the videotape of those surprising remarks:

GUTFELD: Ha ha ha ha ha! 

[ShoutingYeah, in your face, European Union! You guys suck!

[Chanting] USA! USA! USA!

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! 

[SUSTAINED APPLAUSE]

It was now 10:04 p.m. This is the sort of peculiar behavior this "news channel" broadcasts in the ten o'clock hour each night. In fairness, to fully appreciate the sheer insanity of last night's program, you have to listen to the crazy remarks authored by the program's guests.

It's always possible that Tatania Siegel didn't understand such facts when she composed her lengthy profile of Variety's current cover boy. In fairness to Siegel, we do agree with one part of her lengthy profile of "the cable news star who has zero fucks to give." 

We agree with the highlighted assessment at the end of this passage. This is the way her profile begins:

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

On a Tuesday in February, Hollywood is in the throes of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” moment. Karla Sofía Gascón’s old social media posts, with shocking takes on George Floyd (“a drug addict swindler”) and Islam (“an infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured”), are roiling awards season and have turned the actress into a pariah. But the “Emilia Pérez” star, the first openly trans person nominated for an acting Oscar, is also a tricky subject to satirize.

Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert have ignored the conflagration that has engulfed this year’s standard-bearing #Resistance film. The task is left to Greg Gutfeld, whose eponymous Fox News show has made him the most-watched man in late night.

During a taping of his top-rated “Gutfeld!,” he scrolls through the offending tweets and booms dramatically, “The more I read of these, the more I’m starting to like this broad.” The actress may have caught a stray here, but the real target of his monologue is Hollywood.

...Hollywood may be ripe for parody, but this is the kind of humor that, were it taking place anywhere on TV other than Fox News, would be a national scandal. The crowd—which skews slightly more female than male—roars with laughter. And I realize that I’ve crossed into an alternate universe.

In that opening passage, Siegel stresses the fact that the targets of Gutfeld's ribbing tend to differ from those of Fallon, Kimmel and Colbert. When she sees the audience roar with laughter as Gutfeld says he's "starting to like this broad," she says she realizes that has crossed "into an alternate universe."

(As part of his throwback gender politics, Gutfeld routinely refers to women as "broads." In the case of liberal women, he also routinely says they're way too fat; routinely compares them to horses, cows, elephants and whales; routinely complains that they aren't sexually attractive; and routinely says that the skin across their unattractive faces doesn't seem quite right.) 

On balance, we think the journalist protested too little about this alternate universe. To our own eye and ear, this is a vastly alternate universe—one in which an assortment of obvious flyweights join a weirdly angry "Little Scamp" in pushing a remarkably throwback gender politics, while aggressively pushing the mandated political messaging of the Little Scamp's corporate owners—of the Fox News Channel.

We agree—this truly is "an alternate universe." To this day, we don't think that Blue America has been able to see what's actually "happening here" as this fellow's angry messaging is churned very night. 

This Sunday, Bob Dylan may suddenly be very hot all over again. Observing Blue America's possible incomprehension, we think of what the prophet said in the summer of 65:

Ballad of a Thin Man
You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, “Who is that man?”
You try so hard but you don’t understand
Just what you’ll say when you get home
Because something is happening here
And you don’t know what it is

Do you, Mister Jones?

Back then, Dylan may have been discussing himself and the entertainment press. Today, we're talking about an ongoing "night assault" coming at us from many directions—the type of assault which occasioned the death of Hector's "sacred Troy."

When something very unusual happens, it can be hard for us humans to see it for what it is. So it went, we'd be inclined to say, when Siegel profiled, or possibly pretended to profile, the very strange star of the Gutfeld! show—a man who seems to hide a remarkable rage behind a pose as a type of imp.

For the record, the gent wasn't always like this! In this passage, Siegel skims across the surface of the change:

Though Gutfeld says he didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, he did so reluctantly in 2020 and enthusiastically in 2024. “This time I went in person, like the day the freaking place opened,” he says. “I was there at 9 a.m. down in the Village, and I couldn’t wait.” Still, he will (occasionally) skewer the reality TV star-turned-politician. After the presidential debate in September, Gutfeld mocked the orange-hued candidate as the “pumpkin painted pet protector” over Trump’s “They’re eating the dogs” claim. 

During the 2016 election cycle, Trump sat down with Fallon and Colbert. He even hosted “Saturday Night Live.” This time around, he skipped those shows—likely a mutual decision—but dropped by “Gutfeld!” two months after the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt. The ratings soared, with 4.9 million tuning in to hear Trump boast that even the brother of Harris running mate Tim Walz was voting for him. Gutfeld’s sidekick Tyrus, a former professional wrestler who is Black, retorted: “Well, to be fair, a lot of brothers are supporting President Trump.”

For the record, Gutfeld never "skewers" Trump, except in a friendly way. 

Meanwhile, strange! The fellow was anti-Trump at the start. Today, no one fawns over Trump more obsessively. (In our view, Tyrus completely embarrassed himself with his fawning when Trump showed up on the show.)

At any rate, ever so fully he turned! In this profile from July 2023, the New York Times almost seems to describe a meeting in which Suzanne Scott, Gutfeld's corporate owner at Fox, almost seemed to give him the word—when it came to his stance on Trump, he needed to get in line. 

Today, Gutfeld is paid $9 million for telling Europe that it sucks—for dumbly leading Red America's cheers for everything Trump ever says. Climate change is still a "hoax," the fellow occasionally says.

Along the way, he lives the good life with his Russkie wife. Siegel says the $9 million qualifies as a bargain.

There's much, much more that remains to be said about Siegel's remarkably clueless profile of this astonishing "cable news" show and its angry and furious host. Next week, we may be able to visit such realms as we (likely) extend our account of the ongoing "night assault"—the assault we (defeated?) Blue Americans still can't quite seem to see for what it actually is.

In The Plague, Camus described the way we regular human beings can fail to see such disasters—such plagues—even after they're plainly underway. 

If you watched last night's Gutfeld! show—s program which went on the air in prime time—you might have been able to see the madness of the current assault as the modern equivalent of the Achaeans start to breach the safety of Blue America's crumbling walls.

After ten years of dying, the Achaeans who breached Troy's towering walls were filled with an overpowering rage—with a rage which bordered on madness.

They threw Hector's baby son to his death from Troy's towering walls. After that, they performed the rapes, they lit the fires, and they took Hector's wife as a slave. 

They proceeded to murder the kindly King Priam, right there at the altar. According to Greek tradition, the fury was general that night.

Last night, we watched the nightly "ribbing" which takes place on the Gutfeld! show. As this remarkable conduct unfolds, the New York Times and the gang at Mediaite agree to avert their gaze. 

Siegel went those orgs one better, offering an absurd account of what takes place on this show. 

"Who are those guys?" That's what Paul Newman once famously asked in a famous Hollywood film. Watching people like Kennedy—watching the very strange Gutfeld himself—we find ourselves asking that question pretty much every night.

As we Blues insist on averting our gaze, the same question might well arise about us. Overall, our best guess would go like this:

A night assault is underway, and we'll guess that it can't be turned back.


THURSDAY: Fox & Friends follies, but also The Five!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2025

The demise of American discourse: Late yesterday afternoon, we didn't know who "Lawrence" was. 

During yesterday's cabinet meeting, the commander had repeated his gloomy tale about the way American kids were now the dumbest kids in the world.  As he'd done on a recent Hannity program, he referred to a devastating international testing program which doesn't quite seem to exist. 

Needless to say, no one asked him what he was talking about. Instead, as you can see at the CNN transcript, the next question went like this:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/26/25): They [test] the 40 certain nations that they have done for a long time. It seems to be 40, for whatever reason. And we were ranked number 40. A year ago, we were 38. Then we were 39. We hit 40. And so we're last in that. 

And we're first in cost per pupil. So I would say that's unacceptable.

Lawrence, you have something? Go ahead.

QUESTION: So, Mr. President, I know you like competition. And I know it's early. So which department are you most impressed with?

(LAUGHTER)

Sad! For the record, a silly softball question like that helps explain why the White House is currently changing the list of players who get to be in the press pool.

When we post yesterday's report, we didn't know who the questioner was. This morning, watching Fox & Friends, we were allowed to find out. 

In fact, the questioner was Lawrence Jones, fourth among equals in the Fox & Friends friendship circle! Yesterday, he wanted to know which department President Trump thought was best so far.

The commander gave a long, rambling answer. To peruse it, you can click to the CNN transcript.

Meanwhile, how bad does it get on the Fox News Channel? Yesterday afternoon, the first segment on The Five was about as bad as modern pseudo-journalism gets.

For starters, let's start by saying their names. These were the five co-hosts:

Co-hosts, The Five: Wednesday, 2/26/25
Judge Jeanine
Harold Ford
Jesse Watters
Dana Perino
Greg Gutfeld

Those were the regular four Red American co-hosts, with the wholly defeated Ford strapped in the Blue American chair. 

Inevitably, the subject of the day's first segment was the moral and intellectual greatness of the morally and intellectually great American president, President Donald J. Trump. 

Judge Jeanine was moderating the segment. The segment started like this:

JUDGE JEANINE (2/26/25): President Trump holding a blockbuster first cabinet meeting of his second term as he once again proves that he is the most transparent president in history.

A new analysis shows "47" is absolutely smoking his predecessors when it comes to talking to the media. In just his first month, Trump took a staggering one thousand questions compared to Sleepy Joe's sad, measly one hundred and forty. And that number was before today's hour-long juggernaut session, where he answered more than thirty additional questions.

As Judge Jeanine spoke, the chyron beneath her said this:

TRUMP HOLDS BLOCKBUSTER FIRST CABINET MEETING

The chyron agreed with the jurist! Needless to say, so would each of the other co-hosts as the segment proceeded. 

The most transparent president has been smoking Sleepy Joe! With that, Judge Jeanine had stated the premise for the segment, and the Stepfords would take it from there. 

At 5:05, Perino updated the question count. She said the president has now "answered 1,039 questions, which by the time I say these words might be 1,050." 

It didn't seem to have occurred to Perino that just because you've taken a question, that doesn't mean that you've answered it. And it certainly doesn't mean that you've answered the question in an accurate manner. 

As an example of what we mean, consider what Judge Jeanine said at 5:06 when she threw to the hapless Watters:

JUDGE JEANINE: You know, Jesse, I thought it was fascinating when the president started talking about Zelensky and the mineral deal. And when he talked about the fact that $300 billion that we gave to Ukraine and Zelensky, whereas Europe only gave $100 billion--but the money that Europe gave to Ukraine they gave as a loan! Which meant Ukraine had to pay them back!

The money, the $300 billion that Biden gave, was not a loan! He just gave them the money, like a fool! And now what we've got is a president who says we're gonna get our money back. And from now on, we're not gonna be footing the bill for a country that is paying other people back but not us.

We were struck by the judge's example. Just two days earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron had contradicted President Trump, on live TV, concerning those very points. 

The claims which Judge Jeanine found fascinating had been fact-checked about a million times as of yesterday afternoon at 5. For example, here's the beginning and the end of Tuesday's report by ABC News:

Macron warns Trump to 'be careful' on Ukraine, fact-checks him at the White House

French President Emmanuel Macron used his visit to the U.S. to publicly push back on President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on Ukraine, fact-checking his American counterpart in real-time and urging caution in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During their joint Oval Office appearance on Monday, Macron interrupted Trump when the latter said that Europe was being paid back 60% of the aid it contributed to Kyiv over the last three years of war.

Touching Trump's arm to interject, Macron said, "No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort: it was through, like the U.S., loans, guarantees, grants," Macron said. "And we provided real money, to be clear."

After Macron's comments, Trump smiled and replied, "If you believe that, it's okay with me."

[...]

The president continued to focus on what he considers Ukraine's unfair approach to U.S. and American aid during Russia's war.

Trump again falsely claimed the U.S. has given Ukraine $350 billion during this period—a figure publicly disputed by Zelenskyy. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy estimates that the U.S. has committed about $119 billion. The majority—$67 billion—was in the form of military equipment.

The institute says that European nations—meaning the European Union, the U.K., Iceland, Norway and Switzerland—have collectively contributed around $138 billion to Ukraine, $65 billion of which was military equipment.

The commander's claims about these matters have been unfavorably fact-checked about a million times. Yesterday, on The Five, no one seemed to have heard about any of these contradictions. Instead, the stooges took turns swooning over the greatness of the commander's vast transparency regarding this set of claims.

The fact-checks of these claims have been general over the wider free world. Here at home, at the Fox News Channel, the five co-hosts of our most-watched "cable news" show didn't quite seem to have heard.

At 5:14, Judge Jeanine teased the program's second segment. This is the way she played it:

JUDGE JEANINE: I think he is doing a great job so far. Up next, Greasy goes the Joe Rogan route. Gavin Newsom is launching a podcast.

Among this collection of broken toys. President Biden is known as "Sleepy Joe." Governor Newsom is known as "Greasy." 

This type of behavior seems to make sense to these corporate play toys. Can a nation expect to survive such a childish assault? 

In our view, the night assault is underway; it isn't clear that this "revolt from below" hasn't already been lost. We Blues may have managed to earn our way out in a way which can't quite be repaired. 


CHARADES: He "sees no topic as off-limits?"

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2025

That's part of the current charade: Certs was widely known to be a breath mint. But Certs was also a candy mint.

As the leading authority on the subject explains, everyone knew that at one time. That said, it doesn't work that way with the Gutfeld! program.

The host of the show is the cover boy of the current edition of Variety. Inside the authoritative publication, he's also the subject of a lengthy profile by Tatania Siegel. 

That said:

No, Tatania! Gutfeld's program isn't a late night show. It also isn't a comedy show. 

In fact, Gutfeld! is a primetime show. It's also a primetime show on a "cable news" channel. But what Gutfeld! is, more than anything else, is a corporate propaganda show—a program devoted to advancing the political messaging of its host's owner, the Fox News Channel.

According to Siegel, the host of that show—the 60-year-old Greg Gutfeld—is currently paid $9 million per year by that powerhouse "cable news" channel. Even in these latter days, a "cable news" outfit can get a lot of value for that expenditure, which Siegel describes as a bargain.

At various points in her lengthy puff piece, Siegel describes this extremely peculiar TV figure as "the king of late night." By definition, Gutfeld can't be that. 

Along the way, she also describes Gutfeld as "the nasal-voiced shit-stirrer who sees no topic as off-limits," but also as "the cable news star who has zero fucks to give (or a carefully curated rebel persona)."

That first description is absurdly inaccurate. In fact, a wide assortment of basic topics will never be discussed on this imitation of a human TV program.

Simply put, the Gutfeld! program operates in much the way other Fox News Channel programs do. Unfortunately, programs on MSNBC frequently operated in a similar way during the Biden years.

As we noted yesterday, the Gutfeld! program is highly selective about which topics its rotating cast of guests will discuss. The program also selects its guests in such a way that no one will ever disagree with the views of its furious host.

Thanks to this twin process of sifting, none of this program's guests will ever challenge, question or contradict the basic tenets of Fox News Channel political messaging. That said, hold on—there's more!

Gutfeld's eponymous weeknight program is telecast at 10 p.m. Eastern (at 7 p.m. on the coast). Five hours earlier, he also serves, on a daily basis, as co-host of The Five, the top-rated program in the wilderness known as American "cable news."

The Five features five co-hosts, or possibly there are just four. Along the way, Siegel describes Gutfeld's role on that powerhouse program:  

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

[...]

Gutfeld may be a novel phenomenon to some. But to a sizable and growing portion of the Fox News audience, he’s the man of the moment...His sardonic, blunt takedowns have carried him so far that it’s easy to forget that Fox News, historically, has thrived when playing the role of loyal opposition to those in power. Now, though, Gutfeld flits from late night to daytime (as co-host of current events show “The Five”) with gravity-defying ease.

[...]

“The Five,” which plays like the upside-down version of “The View,” is a ratings powerhouse. The show became the first non-primetime cable program to rank No. 1 for four consecutive years. Its viewership is nearly triple the cable news competition combined in the 5 p.m. slot. Back in 2011, the late Fox News chief Roger Ailes felt that “The Five” needed comic relief and designated Gutfeld to deliver the laughs.

According to Siegel, Ailes added Gutfeld to the mix at The Five to provide "needed comic relief."  Today, Gutfeld routinely engages in towel-snapping, bromantic banter with resident sillybill Jesse Watters, one of the program's other co-hosts. But he mainly serves as the purported intellectual heavyweight on the powehouse program.

Long ago and far away—way back in May 1987—Michael Kinsley famously described the 39-year-old Senator Al Gore as "an old person's idea of a young person." He did so in this opinion column in the Washington Post.

It's a bit like that with Gutfeld. In his role on The Five, he seems to serve as an unintelligent person's idea of a person who's very smart.

Routinely, the other three (or four) co-hosts throw to Gutfeld during one of the program's gong-show pseudo-discussions. He then launches one of lengthy, baffling disquisitions on whatever topic has been judged to be suitable for pseudo-discussion that day. 

The other co-hosts enter a somnambulistic state as Gutfeld drones on and on with his baffling theoretics. When his oration finally ends, Gutfeld tends to revert to some towel-snapping with the aforementioned Watters while the other co-hosts permissively chuckle and smile.

That said, are there four other co-hosts, or is the number really three?  It's pretty much as you count it! 

At one time, the program may have gained some "comic relief" with the insertion of Gutfeld. Today, the program acquires a bit of frisson from the alleged inclusion of one co-host who will supposedly state the views of a remarkably uniform group routinely described as "The Left."

On most days, that thankless task falls to one of two players—to Harold Ford or to Jessica Tarlov. In the aftermath of President Trump's election, Ford has almost wholly walked away from that putative task. Essentially, Ford now serves as a fifth pro-Trump co-host, one who sometimes seems to be even more pro-Trump than the official pro-Trump co-hosts are.

When Tarlov sits in the Blue America chair, that air of frisson may survive. Tarlov has also slowed her roll since last November's election, but she sometimes pipes up with an awkwardly convincing point which contradicts the pre-approved view which the other four hosts have agreed on.

When she does, the other co-hosts rise as one to overtalk her. This is the way pseudo-discussion is now fashioned on the most-watched propaganda program in this failing nation's round-the-clock universe of so-called "cable news."

Five hours later, the remarkably coarse tone of the Gutfeld! program suddenly arrives on the air. The host's apparent misogyny is undisguised, as is the furious, frequently ugly pushback against what once would have seemed to be widely accepted rules of public decorum.

Judged by pre-existing norms, the pushback is frequently remarkably ugly but also remarkably stupid and strange. ugly. Liberal women are routinely denounced for allegedly being too fat—for resembling horses, cows, elephants, pigs, very large dogs and the occasionally whale. Such women are also routinely denounced for allegedly having used way too much Botox, or for allegedly having had too many facelifts.

The astonishing women of the Fox News Channel lounge permissively about as these remarkable insults are delivered. This is the realm of the "night assault," but also of vast and furious cultural pushback with respect to gender norms.

Siegel somehow managed to miss this aspect of this remarkably aggressive (prime time) propaganda program. As we noted yesterday, she only allowed herself to offer such pseudo-observations as these:

When Gutfeld surveys the broader comedy field, he’s unimpressed. He struggles to name a host he finds funny outside of [Bill] Maher and Joe Rogan. 

[...]

The election proved that some of those “other guys” no longer are influential. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris opted to sit down with Howard Stern on SiriusXM, thinking his audience of white men could help tip the election in her favor. But for better or for worse, Stern was more relevant when he was a shameless misogynist who fixated on porn stars.

Stern was once "a shameless misogynist"—but somehow, Gutfeld isn't! This is all she allowed herself to tell Variety's readers about the people he chooses to rib:

Gutfeld differs significantly from the [late night comedy] field in tone. After Fallon expressed regret over having Donald Trump on as a guest in 2016 and tousling his hair, he now mostly avoids the polarizing president in his monologues, while Colbert and Meyers have gone all-in on #Resistance humor. Most stick to the Carson format of a celebrity guest promoting a new project. “Gutfeld!” is a closer match to Bill Maher’s old ABC show “Politically Incorrect,” with co-hosts Kat Timpf and Tyrus helping to anchor conversations that frequently rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of “The View.”

Gutfeld frequently "ribs the obese," Siegel's readers are told. He also ribs "the easily triggered." 

That may include people who found it amazingly strange when he asked, on at least three separate occasions last year, if Hunter Biden had started "banging" or even "f*cking" first lady Jill Biden yet. And yes, this nutcase actually did that, as we reported three separate times right here at this site, providing links to the tape on each occasion.

In short, a "night assault" is under way—an assault on certain conventional norms and values. As with some other publications, Variety is averting its gaze.

Gutfeld's program isn't a breath mint, and it isn't a candy mint. Also, it isn't a comedy show, and it isn't a creature of "late night." 

You can call it "Jackson," or you can call it "Johnson." But this is what it is:

Technically, Gutfeld! is a primetime show on a "news" channel. In reality, it's a propaganda program—a program which exists to advance the political messaging of its corporate owner. 

According to Siegel, Gutfeld is paid $9 million per year to perform that task.

You'll only see certain topics discussed on the Gutfeld! program. The various guests have all been selected to eliminate the possibility that anyone will ever question or challenge the views of the weirdly angry host.

Also, the program's rotating panel of guests is routinely made up of obvious policy flyweights. On this primetime "news" program, D-list comedians are invited to state their views on various issues, with everyone knowing that their views must always match those of the host.

In fairness, some of this angry nutball's views are built on perfectly reasonable foundations. Some of this furious nutball's views strike us as flatly correct.

It's the fury of his "night assault" which makes this program an act of war. Siegel wasn't willing or able to say that. Tomorrow, we'll strive for a bit more detail.

We close with further information about a certain famous mint. Eventually, the leading authority on the dual-purpose near-lozenge gives us the dope on cows:

Advertising

In the 1960s and 1970s, Certs was heavily advertised on American television with a famous campaign featuring two attractive young people earnestly arguing over the proper classification of the mints. The one participant would assert, "It’s a breath mint!" The other would assay a rebuttal by stating, "It’s a candy mint!" This taxonomic dilemma would finally be resolved by the unseen announcer, who would achieve synthesis by explaining that Certs was "Two, two, two mints in one!" 

Saturday Night Live lampooned the ads with a fictitious product called "Shimmer," with Gilda Radner's argument "It's a floor wax!" vs. Dan Aykroyd's "It's a dessert topping, you cow!" being resolved by announcer Chevy Chase's declaration that "New Shimmer's a floor wax and a dessert topping!"

Full disclosure! When Aykroyd assailed Radner as "a cow," it was understood to be a type of parody. 

The Gutfeld! program isn't like that. Today, such insults are a staple of this extremely strange program, though these astonishing insults are only aimed at women from "The Left."

That said, the complexification was general with respect to Certs. As you'll see below, a taxonomic dilemma eventually had to be played out in federal court.

Today, we Americans long for simple stories, thanks to the ubiquity of such complexities as this:

In 1999, the United States Customs Service classified Certs as a candy mint for tariff purposes, since candy was taxed differently from oral hygiene products. In the ensuing suit before the United States Court of International Trade, Cadbury introduced expert testimony that Certs stimulate the flow of saliva, thus flushing bad odors from the mouth, and that its flavors and oils mask bad breath. But the court ruled that, since Certs did not contain anti-bacterial ingredients, they were, indeed, simply a candy mint. This ruling was, however, overturned at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, making Certs legally a breath mint.

Today, we Americans long for simple stories. "The star who has zero fucks to give" provides that service to Red America, with plenty of insults thrown in.

Tomorrow: "Silence [has] invaded the suburbs" concerning the Gutfeld! show


WEDNESDAY: Commander discusses the schools once again!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025

Storyline All the Way Down: For decades, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has published a large volume of education data from four major testing programs—the Naep, the Timss, the Pisa and the Pirls.

For decades, we've been asking this question:

Why do they even bother?

As a case in point, consider the commander's remarks at today's lengthy "cabinet meeting." The event started with an oration by Elon Musk.

Musk was decked out in his Dark MAGA outfit, looking like someone you might cross the street to avoid walking past on the sidewalk. Eventually, the commander repeated last week's oration about our pathetic public schools, especially because of Joe Biden.

He delivered the oration last week as he spoke to Sean Hannity. Today, he delivered it again. Using CNN's reasonably accurate transcript, we join the oration in progress:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/26/25): ...You go around Washington, you see all these buildings with Department of Education. We want to move education back to the states, where it belongs. Iowa should have education. Indiana should run their own education.

You're going to see education go way up. Right now, we're—we're ranked at the very bottom of the list. But we're at the top of the list in one thing, the cost per pupil. We spend more money per pupil than any other country of the world. And yet it's Denmark and Norway, Sweden—

And I hate to say this. And we're going to get along very well with China, but it's a competitor. They're at the top of the list. They're among the top ten usually. And they're a very big country. 

So we can't use that as an excuse, right, because we're a very big country too, but we're—we were ranked last time—under Biden, we were ranked 40 out of 40.

They do the 40 certain nations that they have done for a long time. It seems to be 40, for whatever reason. And we were ranked number 40. A year ago, we were 38. Then we were 39. We hit 40. And so we're last in that. And we're first in cost per pupil. So I would say that's unacceptable.

Lawrence, you have something? Go ahead.

So went the commander's review. Stupendously, "Lawrence," whoever that is, removed a softball from a bag and asked the commander this:

LAWRENCE (continuing directly): So, Mr. President, I know you like competition. And I know it's early. So which department are you most impressed with?

(LAUGHTER)

Sad! Once again, we found ourselves asking this: 

Why does the NCES even bother? Why do they bother publishing all those education data, when life in these United States is now, almost wholly, Storyline All the Way Down?

The commander was taking questions today; he took a boatload of questions. No one asked him what testing program is supposed to be the source of his gloomy assessment about the pitiful U.S. kids who supposedly ended up Worst in the World Thanks to Sleepy Joe Biden. 

His extremely gloomy factual claims don't even seem to make sense. But as has been true for decades now, no one present in the room actually seemed to notice or care. 

Nor have we seen anyone offer a review of his peculiar comments to Hannity regarding our pitiful schoolkids. The NCES may keep publishing data, but nobody seems to care.

Today, we offer one addition to the slapdash critique we offered last week. It involves this part of the commander's statement:

Right now, we're ranked at the very bottom of the list. But we're at the top of the list in one thing, the cost per pupil.  We spend more money per pupil than any other country of the world. And yet it's Denmark and Norway, Sweden

He seemed to be saying what he said last week. When it comes to public schools, those nations are ruling the world.

In fact, here are the data from the most recent administration of the PISA Reading Literacy test. As you can see, American students outperformed their counterparts from Denmark, Sweden and Norway on that particular test. 

Nor do the three countries the president named rank at or near the top of the world on the PISA, the TIMSS or the PIRLS. Also, Iowa and Indiana aren't particularly high performers on the domestic NAEP. 

Beyond that, we know of no international test on which American students rank fortieth out of forty nationsproduce the worst scores in the world. What is this guy talking about? Nobody asked or cared.

Why does the NCES bother? The commander has an idea in his head. He will continue to vocalize his idea, and major elites from Blue America will continue to stare into air.

Information no longer exists. As our nation is overrun, it's Storyline All the Way Down, and it has been for dozens of years.


CHARADES: Is Gutfeld! really a comedy show?

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025

Only within a charade: The final score was 217-215—and it wasn't even an NBA all-star game!

In the midst of this conflagration, "the most authoritative and trusted source of entertainment business news" decided it was time to profile the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld, the 60-year-old host of the Fox News Channel's weeknight Gutfeld! program.

Briefly, we'll revisit our dead horese. Variety's lengthy cover story started exactly like this:

How Greg Gutfeld Became the Bill Maher of Fox News—And Toppled Fallon and Colbert in the Ratings

On a Tuesday in February, Hollywood is in the throes of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” moment. Karla Sofía Gascón’s old social media posts, with shocking takes on George Floyd (“a drug addict swindler”) and Islam (“an infection for humanity that urgently needs to be cured”), are roiling awards season and have turned the actress into a pariah. But the “Emilia Pérez” star, the first openly trans person nominated for an acting Oscar, is also a tricky subject to satirize.

Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert have ignored the conflagration that has engulfed this year’s standard-bearing #Resistance film. The task is left to Greg Gutfeld, whose eponymous Fox News show has made him the most-watched man in late night.

Throughout the profile, Tatania Siegel fashions Gutfeld as the hoist of a "late night" comedy show. At one point, she even calls him "the king of late night.")

There are two parts to that designation. In our view, each part is inaccurate—part of a sprawling charade.

Is Greg Gutfeld really the host of a late night comedy show? In fact, his program doesn't appear in the "late night" hours anywhere in the country. 

Way out there in Tinseltown, the program airs at 7 p.m. That isn't even part of primetime, as that realm has traditionally been defined, for example by the leading authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_time

True believers will probably say that one out of two ain't half bad. Gutfeld! may not be a late night show, they'll say, but surely it must be a "comedy" show. 

So a reader might assume after reading Variety's profile.

We're sorry, Virginia, but no! Without any question, the program incorporates comedy elements into its nightly proceeding. But like almost all shows on the Fox News Channel, Gutfeld! is primarily a propaganda show—a program designed to spread the preapproved messaging of its corporate owner.

To be even more precise, Gutfeld! appears on a "cable news" channel. But it would also be a major stretch to think of it as a "news" program. 

Like almost all shows on the Fox News Channel, Gutfeld! is primarily a propaganda program. It's a primetime program devoted to advancing the pre-approved messaging of its corporate owner.

Sometimes that pre-approved messaging may be built on a plausible base. Sometimes, the premise behind the preapproved messaging may even, on balance, be "right."     

On balance, though, this is a hard-core propaganda show which uses comedy elements to drive its messaging—messaging which is frequently remarkably ugly and stunningly atavistic.

Whatare the comedy elements to which we refer? Let's take a look at the structure!

Aas far as we know, the 60-year-old host of the show never earned his living as a comedian. That said, he typically starts each program with two or three minutes of jokes. 

It's rarely hard to spot the onset of the night assault—of the corporate propaganda. Last night, to cite one recent example, this was the host's second joke:

GUTFELD (2/25/25): Rachel Maddow slammed her own network over its decision to replace a number of on-air talent. True, it does look bad that MSNBC fired a black woman and yet kept on two white women.

[PHOTO OF MADDOW AND CHRIS HAYES]

AUDIENCE: LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE

We were still in the program's first minute. After an initial joke comparing Joy Reid to a cannibalistic (black) murderer, Gutfeld drew a big laugh from his studio audience by describing Hayes as a woman.

We were still in the program's first minute. The lid had already been removed from the can.

The tone of the sequence continued. In a tagline to his third joke, the host referred to Governor Tony Evers (D-Wisc.) as Wisconsin's "lesbian governor." The fourth joke was based on the premise that Governor Pritzker (D-Ill.) is just too freaking fat. 

At 10:02—7:02 out on the coast—the merriment ended with this:

GUTFELD: Finally, in England, a horse was rescued after falling halfway through a wooden bridge. Welcome to my world, said one woman.

[PHOTO OF JOY BEHAR]

AUDIENCE: LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE

Behar is 83 years old. On a nightly basis, Gutfeld compares her to elephants, horses, walruses, cows, jokingly saying that she's too fat, but also that she's sexually unattractive.

It was now 10:03—7:03 on the coast. Whatever you might think of a string of jokes of this remarkable type, the string of jokes was now over. 

With respect to that nightly string of jokes, trust us—it can get worse. At this point, a problem appears:

In her profile of Gutfeld, Siegel never comes to terms with the content of this program's comedy elements. In fairness, she does come close at one point, when she reports this one lone criticism of Gutfeld:

“I think he uses this label of ‘comedian’ as armor to be able to get away with things that Bret Baier or Sean Hannity wouldn’t say,” says Andrew Lawrence, deputy research director of advocacy organization Media Matters for America. “I know humor is subjective. I know people do find him funny, but I don’t really see where the humor is in there. He just really strikes me as mean.” 

That’s precisely the point. 

The meanness is precisely the point, Siegel says, in her own voice. That said, she doesn't offer any examples of what she's talking about. Readers are given no examples of the gentleman's meanness—or of the obsession with insults based on sex and gender which anchors his comedy pallet. 

These insults, based on sex and gender, routinely seem to carry a certain familiar odor. As noted, Behar and the other women of The View are routinely compared to very large animals.

Other jokes are routinely built on the theme that Nancy Pelosi—she's 84 years old—has had too many facelifts or has perhaps used too much Botox. In the last month or so, a photo of Governor Hochul's face has often been thrown up on the screen, where it's subjected to ridicule.

This pallet forms the basis for this 60-year-old person's nightly array of jokes. In a clownishly comical bit of evasion, Siegel never mentions this, but she does offer this at one point:

When Gutfeld surveys the broader comedy field, he’s unimpressed. He struggles to name a host he finds funny outside of [Bill] Maher and Joe Rogan. 

[...]

The election proved that some of those “other guys” no longer are influential. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris opted to sit down with Howard Stern on SiriusXM, thinking his audience of white men could help tip the election in her favor. But for better or for worse, Stern was more relevant when he was a shameless misogynist who fixated on porn stars.

Sad! Correctly or otherwise, for better or worse, Siegel is willing to say that Howard Stern was once "a shameless misogynist." At the same time, she never reports a blindingly obvious fact:

She never says that Gutfeld's comedy pallet is littered with material which seems to come from a much earlier cultural era—with material which would strike almost anyone as being overtly misogyny=adjacent as judged by present-day standards and norms.

Stern was a shameless misogynist; Gutfeld is said to be "mean," in a way which goes described.  This is the way a profile goes when it's really a journalistic charade—an imitation of life. 

Back to last night's program! It was now 10:03 p.m. —7:03 out on the coast—but the opening jokes were done. That said, the program's comedy elements were still in the saddle. On a nightly basis, the program works like this:

The program's 60-year-old host starts with some jokes in which he assails women in their mid-80s for being too fat, for failing to meet his standards of sexual attractiveness, and for using too much Botox.

After several minutes of this, he offers the evening's "monologue"—a lengthy statement of his view on some matter of public policy.

Insulting, "humorous" side remarks are likely to continue during this presentation. But he is now engaged in a type of presentation which is much more like an opinion column and much less like a "comedy" set. 

After presenting his view, he tuirns to a four-member panel of guests, asking them to offer their views on the topic in question. As the show continues through the hour, this same panel will be asked to state their views on three or four other topics.

Is this program a comedy show? On a regular basis, this four-member panel will include several lesser-known comedians. Last Friday night, all four members of the panel were lesser-known touring comedians.

That said, these people won't be asked to offer stand-up performances. Instead, they'll be asked to offer their views on the topics at hand. One instant problem obtains:

However one may regard these panelists as comedians, there is rarely any sign that they bring anything resembling expertise or specialized knowledge, to the discussion at hand. 

This program doesn't offer commentary from expert guests. As a general matters, it offers commentary from a panel of fairly obvious flyweights—each of whom is guaranteed to agree with every single word the program's host has just said.

All in all, this stage-managed format produces one of the stupidest "cable news" programs ever put on the air. 

For better or worse, mainstream journalism lacks an established language for describing a program like this as simply being stupid. In fairness, that lack of a journalistic tradition isn't Siegel's doing or fault.

That said, her refusal to describe what actually happens on this show frequently takes us past the comically awful to the realm we would describe as an imitation of life. This, for example, is the way Siegel describes the Gutfeld comedy pallet:

Gutfeld differs significantly from the field in tone. After Fallon expressed regret over having Donald Trump on as a guest in 2016 and tousling his hair, he now mostly avoids the polarizing president in his monologues, while Colbert and Meyers have gone all-in on #Resistance humor. Most stick to the Carson format of a celebrity guest promoting a new project. “Gutfeld!” is a closer match to Bill Maher’s old ABC show “Politically Incorrect,” with co-hosts Kat Timpf and Tyrus helping to anchor conversations that frequently rib the obese, the easily triggered and the hosts of “The View.” (Writer Gene Nelson leans into the we’ll-go-there sensibility, telling the crowd ahead of the taping I attend: “I can make fun of fat people because my best friend is”—his voice drops to a conspiratorial whisper—“gay. And Jewish.”) His elaborate, stagy pauses turn the statement into a joke and briefly conceal that what he says makes no sense.

Truly, that's a journalistic charade—an imitation of human life. 

According to Siegel, Howard Stern used to be shamelessly misogynistic. Gutfeld merely engages in humor which "frequently ribs the obese." That's all he's doing when he compares the women of The View to a succession of barnyard creatures! 

He and his co-hosts and guests also "rib the easily triggered," Siegel murkily says, making no attempt to explain that fuzzy statement. Along the way, she spends more time quoting incoherent remarks by one of the program's writers than she devotes to describing the actual content of what Gutfeld says on the air. 

Clownishly, Siegel also quotes Gutfeld saying this, as we noted in yesterday's report:

Gutfeld is an unlikely king of late night. With a panel format instead of the one-on-one setup of his peers, “Gutfeld!” features a hodgepodge of regulars who were once ubiquitous until they tilted rightward, such as comedian Rob Schneider and Vincent Gallo. His rivals, he says, are losing audience share because they adhere to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” and, therefore, can “never be funny.” ... In fact, “Gutfeld!” is beating “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,” “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “The Daily Show” by every measure and is uniquely poised to ride the Trump 2.0 wave.

As we noted yesterday, Schneider and Gallo simply aren't regular guests on the Gutfeld! program. Other people actually are. 

Also, the idea that his guests were once "ubiquitous" (gifted with mainstream popularity?) until they shifted rightward is a ridiculous fantasy. Most of his comedian guests are drawn from the touring D-list—are people who have massively gained in exposure, income and popularity from appearing as regulars on Gutfeld's program.

That said, nothing could possibly be more absurd than Gutfeld's complaint that network hosts like Colbert, Kimmel and Fallon adhere to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” and therefore can “never be funny.” 

However one might assess the work of those network hosts, no one on the face of the earth adheres to “a very narrow, agreed-upon groupthink” to a greater extent than the host of the Gutfeld! program. Gutfeld! is one of the dumbest "news" shows ever aired, but it's also one of the most predictable and most aggressively scripted.

Starting with co-hosts Tyrus and Timpf, the program's scripting is largely accomplished through its selection of stooges as guests. You will simply never see a panelist question or challenge the host's fundamental point of view or anything the host has said. 

The guests are paid to sing along, and sing along they do. Aside from the program's unending coarse tone, this produces one of the stupidest TV "news" programs in the history of the medium.

This is one of the dumbest "news" programs ever aired. It's actually a propaganda program—and yes, it's on the air in prime time. Siegel wasn't even willing to make that simple point clear.

In closing, let's be fair! Some of the viewpoints Gutfeld advances are built on a reasonable base. That said, his program comes from the emotional realm of the ancient "night assault," from the realms of plunder and arson.

At the world's most authoritative site, Siegel was willing to see and report none of this. Instead, she offers a journalistic charade, but she's hardly alone in her refusal to walk and talk like an actual human with respect to this very strange, aging host.

Tomorrow: Let's take a look at the panelists