EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: Sitting president threatens the sleazebags!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2025

What would Jesus have done? For now, but only briefly, let's set the military strike in Nigeria off to the side.

Let's consider the highly unusual person who's able to order such strikes. Last night, in what has become his typical holiday style, he offered this Christmas message:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Merry Christmas to all, including the many Sleazebags who loved Jeffrey Epstein, gave him bundles of money, went to his Island, attended his parties, and thought he was the greatest guy on earth, only to “drop him like a dog” when things got too HOT, falsely claimed they had nothing to do with him, didn’t know him, said he was a disgusting person, and then blame, of course, President Donald J. Trump, who was actually the only one who did drop Epstein, and long before it became fashionable to do so. When their names get brought out in the ongoing Radical Left Witch Hunt (plus one lowlife “Republican,” Massie!), and it is revealed that they are Democrats all, there will be a lot of explaining to do, much like there was when it was made public that the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax was a fictitious story—a total Scam—and had nothing to do with “TRUMP.” The Failing New York Times, among many others, was forced to apologize for their bad and faulty Election “Reporting,” even to the point of losing many subscribers due to their highly inaccurate (FAKE!) coverage. Now the same losers are at it again, only this time so many of their friends, mostly innocent, will be badly hurt and reputationally tarnished. But sadly, that’s the way it is in the World of Corrupt Democrat Politics!!! Enjoy what may be your last Merry Christmas! President Donald J. Trump

Enjoy what may be your last Merry Christmas! 

That was the holiday message sent to "the many Sleazebags" addressed in this Christmas Day post. The rest of us are left to wonder how repeated messaging of this type might sound to some (sadly) disordered person who might decide that it may be time to act on such presentations.

We've been asking, in the past week, if it might be "dangerous" to have this particular person in a position of vast unchecked power. Also, if it might be dangerous to proceed ahead without considering the possibility that some "mental illness" might be involved in such repetitive behavior, possibly driven along at the present time by some sort of cognitive decline.

Somewhere ages and ages hence, we the people will be able to discuss such possibilities in our public forums (if such forums still exist). As of today, we haven't yet evolved to the point where we're even willing to conduct such discussions, or where we would know how to do so if we decided to give it a try.

Heightening the possibility of danger is the power possessed by this person—power expressed yesterday in these military strikes:

U.S. Strikes ISIS in Nigeria After Trump Warned of Attacks on Christians

The United States launched a number of strikes against the Islamic State in northwestern Nigeria, President Trump announced on Thursday, the latest American military campaign against a nonstate adversary—in this case, Islamic jihadis who the president asserts have been slaughtering Christians.

Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social that “the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!”

The strike involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired off a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, hitting insurgents in two ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria’s Sokoto State, according to a U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. The operation was done in coordination with the Nigerian military, the official said.

In a statement, U.S. Africa Command said its initial assessment concluded that “multiple” ISIS terrorists were killed in the strike.

So begins the news report in the New York Times. 

As a matter of basic fairness, we take note of the assertion that yesterday's operation "was done in coordination with the Nigerian military." At any rate, the president took out the scum yesterday, even as he may have seemed to be threatening the sleazebags. 

There's much, much more to say about the ways newspapers like the New York Times have agreed to normalize such unusual public behavior. Forget the fact that such newspapers refuse to interview medical specialists about the possibility of some sort of (unfortunate) "mental disorder," possibly accompanied by some degree of (unfortunate) cognitive decline.

(Or not.)

Forget about that! In the days ahead, we'll try to detail the moral squalor involved in the various claims this president has made, and in the various accusations he has advanced, with respect to the Jeffrey Epstein matter. 

Forget about (possible) issues of "mental illness" or "mental disorder!" Such newspapers have even refused to treat his endless promulgation of flagrantly false statements and blatantly unfounded accusations as a major news hook—as a feature of this man's bizarre behavior which should be pursued, as a front-page topic, every time it presents.

Simply put, we humans weren't built for this line of work. Something seems to be wrong with the world's most powerful man, but salaries are still quite good in other precincts, and people who still enjoy those salaries just keep averting their gaze from his bizarre public conduct. 

From his ugly unfounded accusations. From his endless flaming misstatements.

Do you believe that the sitting president may be in the grip of an actual "illness?" If so, we've suggested that you "pity the child." 

Are our journalists in the grip of some illness? We report the basic facts, and then we let you decide!

Don't read all about it: Regarding that warning to the sleazebags, you can read about it at Mediaite. 

Will it be reported by the New York Times? We don't have the answer to that!

 

EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: He's a moral pygmy, one analyst said!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2025

The moral over the medical: Oof—but also, world without end! Last evening, sure enough, there he went again:

Trump Lashes Out at ‘Dead Man Walking’ Stephen Colbert, Demands CBS ‘Put Him to Sleep NOW’

President Donald Trump lashed out at Late Show host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday evening, branding Colbert a “dead man walking” and urging CBS to “put him to sleep.”

“Stephen Colbert is a pathetic trainwreck, with no talent or anything else necessary for show business success,” wrote Trump in a Truth Social post. “Now, after being terminated by CBS, but left out to dry, he has actually gotten worse, along with his nonexistent ratings.”

He continued, “Stephen is running on hatred and fumes—a dead man walking! CBS should, ‘put him to sleep,’ NOW, it is the humanitarian thing to do!”

And so on from there, again and again. World without end, amen!

In the face of this endless conduct, we've been suggesting that you pity the child. But what could we mean by that?

Let's return to Monday, December 15—one day after the murder of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner. President Trump took to Truth Social and voiced his reaction in the unusual manner, as shown:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!

That was the president's latest "truth." That afternoon, he doubled down on what he had said as he responded to a question right there in the Oval Office.

That was an extremely strange reaction to this vicious murder. That said, the reaction that night on MS NOW also struck us as strange. 

The president's peculiar behavior was almost wholly unmentioned on that network that night. But at 4 p.m., on Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace and a trio of guests stated their views about the president's conduct in a pair of opening segments.

We were struck by what they said. The four are all good, decent people—but none of the four suggested that the sitting president might seem to be mentally ill.

(Just our luck! Even as we type, the invaluable Internet Archive reports that it's "currently offline." For that reason, we can't give you clips of what each of these four people said. Later, you'll be able to watch their full discussion simply by clicking here. For today, we'll work from the notes we took in real time.)

We were struck, but not surprised, by what the four people said. They treated the president's bizarre behavior as a moral failure, not as the possible effect of an actual "illness."

"The man is a pygmy, unsuited for the office" / "He's morally vacuous, intellectually insipid," Michael Feinberg said. The four people didn't intend to "lower ourselves to Trump's level," Nicolle Wallace understandably said.

We were struck, but not surprised, by this approach to this extremely unusual conduct. It's been a rule for a very long time:

Our journalists will refer to "mental illness" when discussing types of violent street crime. But any such discussion must stop at the water's edge when it comes to the major figures who people our national politics.

Like many rules, this was a very good rule—until such time as it wasn't. In the case of the current president, two different best-selling books had put the word "dangerous" in their titles as medical specialists offered such assessments as this:

Prologue: Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man (Mary L. Trump, 2020)

[...]

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists, and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as “malignant narcissism” and “narcissistic personality disorder” in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label gets us only so far.

[...]

Does Donald have other symptoms we aren’t aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for.

He could be a "sociopath," the president's adult niece said. She had known him when she was a child, but also as an adult. She had even worked with him on a book-writing project when she was 29 years old.

She was a doctorate-holding clinical psychologist, and she viewed her uncle as dangerous in the extreme. Along the way in her best-selling book, she noted the fact that so-called "sociopathy" can be bred in the blood—can be passed on from parent to child. 

According to current medical science, so it can go with tragic examples of body-based "mental illness"—with illnesses which rob the afflicted party of normal levels of human functioning.

Is President Trump "mentally ill" in some such way? Astoundingly yet not astoundingly, major journalists cling to the rule in which such questions can't be asked—in which bizarre behavior can be discussed by members of their own guild, but not by medical specialists.

It's often said that "sociopaths" are robbed of empathy by their illness. So it almost might seem to be when the sitting president engages in the peculiar behavior he now displays on a daily basis. 

We'll offer this small bit of context:

Under prevailing rules of assessment, those of us who qualify as "good, decent people" also have obvious limits on the extent of our empathy. Very, very few of us normal people ever decide to push our own power of empathy to the limit:

We don't venture off to save the world's suffering children, as a handful of highly unusual people actually do. We don't relocate to smaller houses so we can support our favorite charities to a greater extent.

That doesn't mean that we're bad people; it simply means that we're people people. And at present, when we normal people are confronted by someone who (plainly) seems to be "mentally ill," we're inclined to say so in certain contexts—but we'll doggedly stick to the rules of the guild in the most dangerous circumstances.

That's simply what we the people are like. Disastrously, those of us afflicted with ASPD will have access to even less empathy than that!

To our eye and to our ear, the president's conduct has been screaming "mental illness" for a very long time now. 

We don't mean that as an insult. We mean it as a tragic statement concerning the loss of human potential.

In 2017, then again in 2020, medical specialists in best-selling books offered warnings about this state of affairs. The key word "dangerous" sat right there in the title of each of these books.

Even in the face of those assessments, our overpaid corporate journalists have insisted on sticking to the long-standing rules of their guild:

The moral insults flow thick and fast. The possible or apparent medical perspective is uniformly disappeared.

In Mary L. Trump's book, she savaged the disordered conduct of her "dangerous" adult uncle. She also allowed us to "pity the child," through her account of the way she says he became the dangerous person he is.

In her book, Mary L. Trump cites the possibility that her uncle's possible "sociopathy" could have been bred in the bone—could have been passed down from his father, "a high-functioning sociopath." But she also tells us this:

Symptoms of sociopathy include a lack of empathy, a facility for lying, an indifference to right and wrong, abusive behavior, and a lack of interest in the rights of others. Having a sociopath as a parent, especially if there is no one else around to mitigate the effects, all but guarantees severe disruption in how children understand themselves, regulate their emotions, and engage with the world.

Children of sociopaths grow up in great danger. In the general area of mental health, the sitting president seems to have grown up with all the disadvantages found in a family like his.

For some time, we've suggested you "pity the child"—but with respect to a figure like President Trump, no such thing will occur in our lifetimes. Somewhere ages and ages hence, we Americans may have evolved to the point where we can conduct intelligent discussions of "mental illness," even when major public figures are involved.

At some point, we may be able to do so empathetically, even saying such things as this:

"There but for fortune! There but for fortune go we."

We aren't up to that task today. In the case of President Trump, our angry insults in Blue America—our attempts to criminalize his gruesome behavior; our attempts to get him locked up—may have greased his skid back into the Oval Office. 

We still refuse to give voice to a fairly obvious fact about his possible medical condition. Sadly, we'll tell you this:

History remembers the good and decent people—the people who knew how to forgive. History remembers Nelson Mandela, but also our own Dr. King. 

The families of Dylan Roof's murders in Charleston were admired all over the world.

President Trump is a pygmy, we Blues were told on Deadline: White House that day. It was a pleasing "cable news" moment—but is the president simply "ill?" And what exactly is keeping us from letting the old frameworks go?

Briefly, let's be honest. We the "good, decent people" aren't perfect fountains of empathy ourselves. We humans aren't built for that.

There's a limit on the amount of empathy which takes shape even within such people as us. Tragically, people afflicted with certain types of "mental illness" are built to be even worse!

Do you believe in mental illness? At this site, we continue to ask.

ADDENDUM: Professor Brabender's great anthropological finding helps explain the impulse under discussion:

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

Brabender voiced his finding all the way back in the 1960s. Anthropologically, it helps explain the history of the species:

War without end, amen.

 

TUESDAY: Mediaite touts a "shocking Trump mention!"

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2025

Reuters suggests it's a fraud: Did former president Bill Clinton ever visit the hellhole of Jeffrey's Epstein's private island?

Through his spokesperson(s) and in his own voice, Clinton has always said the answer is no. In this morning's report, we mentioned the hall of mirrors a person heads down in trying to answer that question, one way or the other, by means of traditional evidence. 

We also mentioned a very significant fact:

Except in rare cases, it will generally be extremely hard to demonstrate that some alleged event didn't happen. That's especially true if no alleged date is given for the alleged event.

Did Bill Clinton ever visit the island? We'll attempt to puzzle that out, at least to a modest extent, on Friday or Saturday. 

For today, sadly, this: 

We direct you to a new report from Mediaite. It appears beneath this headline:

The 5 Most Shocking Trump Mentions in the Latest Batch of Epstein Docs

The headline promises five (5) shocking mentions of Donald J. Trump—shocking mentions which have been found within a new batch of the "Epstein files." Sub-headline included, here's the full text of the first of the five shocking mentions: 

Epstein Pens Letter to Larry Nassar that Trump Also Loves “Young, Nubile Girls”

A letter addressed from Epstein to fellow sex criminal Larry Nassar—the former Team USA gymnastics coach—claimed “our president also shares our love of young, nubile girls.”

“When a young beauty walked by he loved to ‘grab snatch,’ whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system,” Epstein wrote.

The 2019 letter does not reference Trump by name, but it coincided with his first term in the White House and referenced the infamous “grab ’em by the p*ssy” comment he made in 2005.

Reuters pointed out:

"The postmark on its envelope is Virginia, not New York where Epstein was jailed, and indicates the envelope was processed three days after his death in August 2019. The return address on the envelope misidentifies the jail where Epstein was being held and does not include his inmate number, which the Bureau of Prisons policy manual requires be included on outgoing mail."

Gag us! That would indeed be a "shocking mention"—except for the unexplained account of what Reuters has "pointed out."

To read the full Reuters report, you can just click here. Below, you see the Reuters headline, which features one extremely significant word:

Justice Department releases card mentioning Trump, purportedly sent from Epstein to Nassar

The key word there is "purportedly." Dear citizen, read on!

Plainly, Reuters is suggesting—based on what seems like very substantial evidence—that this "purported" letter from Epstein to Nassar was, in fact, a forgery of some kind. That it was, in fact, a fraud.

We can't swear that it was a fraud, but that seems to be what Reuters is suggesting. At first glance, that suggestion seems to be based on what looks like significant evidence.

Sadly, our discourse has been working in similar ways for roughly the past forty years, ever since we decided that policy questions are boring and hard and it's more entertaining and much more fun to try to get politicians locked up, or impeached, on the basis of what we purport to be their badly flawed "character."

Health care policy is boring and hard; fake allegations are fun! We've been playing this game for decades now. Anthropologically, are we humans built for this game, or do humans just wanna have fun?

(Be sure to examine what Reuters wrote. Pending further investigation, we'd be slow to put our faith in this purported mention.)

EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: The New York Times has changed its stance!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2025

Planet of the Humans: Is President Trump a "sociopath?" Almost everything is possible, but a language problem intrudes:

As we've noted in the past, "sociopath" isn't a clinical term within the current realm of medical science. Adjusting for technical language, our question turns out to be this:

Is it possible hat President Trump is afflicted with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), a type of condition which was once described as a "mental illness?"

(As we've also noted, the language of "mental illness" seems to be losing favor too.)

At any rate, is President Trump afflicted with ASPD? Almost everything is possible! And as we've noted in the past, his clinical psychologist niece asserted this in her 2020 best-seller:

Prologue: Too Much and Never Enough (2020)

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists, and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as “malignant narcissism” and “narcissistic personality disorder” in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label gets us only so far.

[...]

Does Donald have other symptoms we aren’t aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for.

Oof! Of course, as we've noted in the past, the fact that she said it doesn't mean that it's true. But just within the past week, the president has chosen to bigfoot the honored dead by sticking his name on the Kennedy Center, and he has now affixed his name to a new group of battleships.

At one time, he was restricted to naming nondescript entities like Trump Steaks and Wine. Also, to placing his name on the Donald J. Trump Foundation, an alleged charity venture which was "dissolved by court order in 2018 after various legal violations came to light." 

With his ascent in the realm of elective politics, the naming—and the ugly name-calling—moved to a  higher level. But why does he behave in these ways? More specifically, how should wonderful people like us understand his endlessly unfortunate conduct?

As part of the overall package, empathy seems to be missing here, some observers have said. But setting niceties of language to the side, is it possible that this man is actually in the grip of an actual illness—an illness which may have been passed on through the genes from his "high-functioning sociopath" father?

(We're quoting his niece again.)

Almost everything is possible! We'll try to finish these ruminations tomorrow—and given the date which now approaches, we'll even ask this question about President Trump:

WWJD? What would Jesus Christ (think and) do about this president's conduct?

We'll try to speed through this general topic tomorrow. For today, let's consider the latest turmoil at the New York Times, as conveyed by this "Political Memo" in today's print editions.

Lisa Lerer wrote the piece. We're inclined to regard her essay as an ill-advised, unbalanced attack on Bill Clinton.

That said, the issue on which we'll focus involves the inability of us the humans to handle the challenge of reporting known relevant facts. Inevitably, our story starts with the apparent sociopathy of the sitting president. 

We'll try to address the larger mess at the end of the week. But for today, let's focus on two different accounts concerning the aforementioned Clinton.

The first account was written by the New York Times' Annie Karni. It appeared in a news report in the December 15 print editions.

Did Bill Clinton ever visit Jeffrey Epstein's private island? Here's what Karni's news report said:

Inside the Clintons’ Fight to Avoid Testifying in the House Epstein Inquiry

[...]

Mr. Clinton was acquainted with Mr. Epstein—an association the former president described in his memoir—but never visited his private island and cut off contact with him two decades ago. Mr. Clinton took four international trips on Mr. Epstein’s private jet in 2002 and 2003, according to flight logs, and an undated photograph of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Epstein signed by the former president was part of a batch of images released by House Democrats last week highlighting Mr. Epstein’s ties to powerful men.

Bill Clinton never visited Epstein's private island! So reported the New York Times, exactly eight days ago.

At this site, we'd be inclined to assume that Karni's statement is accurate. That said, it's famously hard to prove a negative—in this case, to prove that something never happened. 

For that reason, we were surprised to see that flat assertion in that news report. We were especially surprised given some irresponsible journalistic conduct in earlier New York Times reports on this general subject.

At any rate, Bill Clinton never visited Epstein's island! So said the New York Times, or so it said until this morning, when Lerer—in what strikes us as an unfortunate piece—offered this alternate account:

POLITICAL MEMO
Bill Clinton, a Main Character in the Epstein Drop, Just Can’t Escape Scandal

[...]

In 2019, hours after Mr. Epstein was found dead by suicide in his prison cell, Mr. Trump posted a conspiracy theory on social media claiming without evidence that Mr. Clinton had been connected to his death.

Since then, Mr. Trump has maintained a steady drumbeat of claims that Mr. Clinton spent significant time visiting Mr. Epstein on his private island—an accusation Mr. Clinton denies. Those claims have also been undercut by Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, and Ms. Maxwell.

As always, President Trump has been spouting inflammatory claims "without evidence." 

That was true about what he said back in 2019. It's also true about the claims he spouted this summer, in which he repeatedly claimed that Bill Clinton went to the island 27 or 28 times.

Back in the summer, we thought the Times refused to push back against those unfounded claims. But now, the Times can't seem to make up its mind:

Last week, it said those claims were false. Eight days later, the paper's not sure.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we humans simply weren't built for this type of work. Our anthropological finding is this:

As a species, we're surprisingly good at building buildings and at creating technologies. We're surprisingly good at those tasks—but we're poorly equipped for almost everything else.

What's the truth about the matter in question? Did Bill Clinton ever visit Epstein's island?

Through a spokesperson, and in his own voice, Clinton has said, again and again, that the actual answer is no. But it's famously hard to prove a negative, and there exists a blizzard of accusations and claims about this matter which will almost surely never be unscrambled by our tiny human minds.

On Friday or Saturday, we'll try to sort this mishegas out to some minor extent. For today, we almost thought we heard the voice of the old New York Times, the paper which created the poisonous Whitewater pseudo-scandal way back in the winter of 1992.

Mainly, though, we saw the Times contradicting itself—sliding away from an earlier claim. There's a dirty little secret lurking here—a secret the Times and its Timespeople aren't inclined to report. 

It concerns the basic question of human capability. As such, it's an anthropological secret. The dirty little secret is this:

We're fairly good at building things, unskilled at everything else!

Tomorrow: What goes through the head of a sociopath? Also, what goes through the heads of people more like us?

MONDAY: We're so old that we can remember...

MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2025

...when Paul Krugman wrote about this: On December 13, the New York Times ran a guest essay concerning the cost of health insurance. Headline included, the essay started like this:

$27,000 a Year for Health Insurance. How Can We Afford That?

The debate over whether to extend the expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies has consumed lawmakers over the past two months, precipitated a government shutdown and sparked Republican infighting. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong debate.

While I believe we should extend the subsidies, which expire at the end of the month, to help families pay their insurance premiums, doing so wouldn’t fix the underlying problem: surging health care spending. That’s the reason we need the subsidies in the first place, and it’s bankrupting families and shredding jobs for low- and middle-income workers across the economy.

And so on from there. The essay was written by Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale.

Topics like that have largely slid beneath the waves in this modern era, in large part due to the flooding of the zone. Distractions come thick and fast these days. Who has time for a discussion of a topic like that?

It occurred to us that it's been a while since we reviewed a basic type of health care spending data. Why does our nation's "surging health care spending" seem to exceed that of other comparable nations? 

Nostalgically, we started to click. Soon, we came upon these data, courtesy of Peterson KFF:

Health expenditures per capita, U.S. dollars, 2023 (current prices and PPP adjusted)
United States: $13,432
Germany: $8,441
France: $7,136
Canada: $7,013
Australia: $6,931
United Kingdom: $6,023
Japan: $5,640

Peterson KFF includes a "Comparable Country Average." It includes the spending figures from some smaller Euro nations. That average is said to be this:

Comparable Country Average: $7,393

People, we're just saying!

We've been puzzling over numbers like that ever since Paul Krugman did a series of columns on this topic back in 2005 or 2006, also for the New York Times. From that day to this, we don't think we've ever seen a major news org tackle the challenge of attempting to tackle this question:

Why do we Americans spend so much more, on a per capita basis, than other nations do? 

Why do we Americans spend so much more? The daily flooding of the zone makes it even less likely that you'll ever see a serious effort to tackle a question like that.

Meanwhile, if someone did develop such information, the findings would be sifted in different ways within Silo Red and Silo Blue. We've become a spectacularly unintelligent nation, which, just to be perfectly honest, doesn't differ all that much from The Way It Always Was.

We've shown you the start of Professor Cooper's essay. Before long, he's also saying this:

...Rising health care spending is killing the American dream.

Despite devastating out-of-pocket costs, Americans are generally insulated from the true cost of health care premiums. However, the expiring subsidies on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, where more than 20 million Americans get their insurance, show just how exorbitant premiums have become. Consider a 60-year-old couple earning $85,000 a year. Without subsidies, their health insurance premiums next year will approach $32,000 (akin to buying a new Toyota Camry).

Those of us who get health care insurance from our employers—some 160 million Americans—may be breathing a sigh of relief. But our health care premiums are also staggering (an average of $27,000 a year for a family of four), and the fact that our employers pay part of the tab isn’t much of a reprieve.

That’s because decades’ worth of research shows that, even though employers pay most of workers’ premiums, those costs are passed on to workers in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs.

There's a lot more to Cooper's essay than that. But such essays lead nowhere within our flailing American discourse. Thanks to the incessant flooding of the zone, that discourse is almost surely dumber now than it's ever been before.

At one point, we Americans occasionally pretended to discuss such topics. Those discussions rarely went anywhere, but today we pretty much don't even bother.

The zone gets flooded all day long. Inevitably, our attention is drawn to the endless string of inanities which rush through as part of the flood.

Way back when, Paul Krugman tried to make this a topic. Through zero fault of his own, Paul Krugman tried and he failed.

EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: The whiteness of the whale gives way...

MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2025

...to the flooding of the zone: Long ago and oceans away, sacred Melville famously pondered "the whiteness of the whale."

In fact, that was the title of Chapter 42 of his most famous novel. If Project Gutenberg can be trusted, the chapter starts like this:

CHAPTER 42. The Whiteness of the Whale.

What the white whale was to Ahab, has been hinted; what, at times, he was to me, as yet remains unsaid.

Aside from those more obvious considerations touching Moby Dick, which could not but occasionally awaken in any man’s soul some alarm, there was another thought, or rather vague, nameless horror concerning him, which at times by its intensity completely overpowered all the rest; and yet so mystical and well nigh ineffable was it, that I almost despair of putting it in a comprehensible form. It was the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me. But how can I hope to explain myself here; and yet, in some dim, random way, explain myself I must, else all these chapters might be naught.

"It was the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me," Melville admitted. Today, what's actually bringing the American project down is the "the flooding of the zone."

In the main, that flooding tracks to one famous man. In last Saturday's news analysis piece, Peter Baker starts to list the ways. His essay starts like this:

NEWS ANALYSIS
Shouting, Ranting, Insulting: Trump’s Uninhibited Second Term

It all might make more sense if he actually were drinking. By all accounts, President Trump doesn’t touch the stuff. So when his own chief of staff said that he has “an alcoholic’s personality,” she was talking about his larger-than-life nature rather than his consumption.

Yet in some ways, it may be an apt description for a president who seems even less inhibited than ever in a way that has many in Washington and beyond shaking their heads or even wondering if the leader of the free world has lost it. The word often whispered by Republicans and shouted by Democrats and Never Trumpers is “unhinged.”

Is it possible that President Trump has "lost it?" In Washington, some observers are "even wondering" about that possibility, Baker says as he starts. Some are whispering, or even shouting, that the president is "unhinged."

"Unhinged" is one of the euphemism-adjacent terms on which the guild has settled. According to Baker--and Baker is plenty sharp--the word is "often whispered by Republicans," but it's "shouted by Democrats."

With that, Baker began listing the recent episodes which have been part of the flood:

(continuing directly from above)
It was one thing when Mr. Trump called a reporter “piggy.” Or casually threatened to put a half-dozen members of Congress to death for accurately stating the laws of war. Or labeled all Somali immigrants “garbage.” Or declared that daring to question his physical energy level at age 79 was “seditious, perhaps even treasonous.” But when Mr. Trump cavalierly attacked the Hollywood icon Rob Reiner just hours after his body was found in a grisly murder scene, it sickened even some of his own political allies.

He followed that no-he-didn’t-just-say-that-did-he performance this week by adding a series of plaques underneath portraits of past presidents on the wall of the Colonnade at the White House that brazenly denigrated some of his predecessors. In effect, he bronzed some of his cartoonish social media juvenilia and bolted it to the taxpayer-owned building where two Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan once lived.

“He’s just lost it,” Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote on social media after the president lashed out at Mr. Reiner. After seeing pictures of the new White House plaques, Mr. Murphy added, “He is such a sad, damaged person.”

Baker listed several recent iterations of the relentless flood:

The insults aimed at female reporters. The suggestion that execution might be appropriate in the wake of a somewhat odd though accurate video statement concerning the laws of war.

The astonishing claim, stated in the Oval Office on two successive days, that Rep. Omar (and all Somali immigrants) are just a pile of "garbage." And then, the astounding attack on the late Rob Reiner--on a widely popular public figure who had just been murdered by his troubled son.

On and on the incidents went, nor did the flood stop there. Colloquially, there is only one word for "a series of plaques underneath portraits of past presidents [in] the White House that brazenly denigrated some of his predecessors." In the realm of colloquial speech, that one word is this:

Insane.

That would, of course, be a colloquial assessment. "Insane" is not a diagnostic term within the current realm of what gets described as "medical science." With respect to Senator Murphy, he may have started losing us when he grew that JD Vance look alike beard in the aftermath of last November's election.

Alas! Within the groves of Blue America, our own tribal leaders began reshaping their public profiles in the aftermath of that stunningly bungled election. In the reports to which we link you below, Newsweek reported one part of the makeovers. 

This still gets laughed about in Silo Red, got disappeared in Silo Blue;

AOC Removes Pronouns From X Bio: What We Know
The right-wing media sphere flew into a frenzy on Thursday when several users on social media pointed out that U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York had removed her pronouns from her bio on X, formerly Twitter.

The overarching sentiment was that Ocasio-Cortez's decision to remove her pronouns from her bio underscored President-elect Donald Trump's decisive victory in the 2024 election, and was an inflection point in "woke" ideology—a derisive term that many conservatives use to describe identity politics and progressive values.

Has Pete Buttigieg Removed Pronouns From His Bio? What We Know
Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg has removed his pronouns from his biography on X, formerly Twitter, according to a prominent account on the social media platform.

Screenshots from the Libs of TikTok account, which is run by conservative activist Chaya Raichik and has over 4 million followers, appear to show that Buttigieg deleted his "he/him" pronouns from the account.

Newsweek has contacted Buttigieg for comment via Facebook and Instagram direct messages.

Uh-oh! Politically speaking, had we Blues possibly moved a bit beyond our skis when it came to some of the stuff which got assailed as "woke?" 

Our answer to that question would be yes. For others, mileage may differ.

But in the face of all that, it's President Trump who is the most powerful player of all. And the sheer (colloquial) insanity of those plaques, right there in what's left of the White House complex, helps us see the basic question from which Blue journalists continue to flee:

Is something "wrong" with President Trump? More to the point, is it possible that hie niece was right when she published this (tragic)assessment in the prologue to her best-selling book?

Prologue

[...]

None of the Trump siblings emerged unscathed from my grandfather’s sociopathy and my grandmother’s illnesses, both physical and psychological, but my uncle Donald and my father, Freddy, suffered more than the rest. In order to get a complete picture of Donald, his psychopathologies, and the meaning of his dysfunctional behavior, we need a thorough family history.

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists, and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as “malignant narcissism” and “narcissistic personality disorder” in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label gets us only so far.

[...]

Does Donald have other symptoms we aren’t aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The niece, a Ph.D. holding clinical therapist, was speaking about "psychopathologies" which qualify as examples of diagnosable "mental illness." 

The fact that she wrote what she wrote doesn't mean that she was right. But this remains a part of contemporary medical science which our journalists refuse to discuss, except through the use of euphemisms:

The guy has "lost it," some might say. Some might even say he's "unhinged!"

Major questions remain about this possible source of the flood. Example:

Is a mental illness really a form of an actual illness? Should we regard the behaviors which result as we typically do--as a straightforward expression of a lack of "character?" Or should we regard those behaviors as the (perhaps unavoidable) results of a (physical, bodily) illness?

Also this:

Under current rules of the game, it's reasonably safe to attribute the president's flood of behaviors to a "cognitive decline." Under current rules of the game, that's a more acceptable speculation. 

But is it possible that his recent behaviors could be the result of some sort of cognitive decline piggy-backed onto a pre-existing "mental illness"--a pre-existing "mental illness which may have been bred in the bones, passed on at birth through the genes?

Here on this campus, we continue to explore these questions for the benefit of someone ages and ages hence. At our present stage of intellectual evolution, we Americans aren't ready to discuss such questions.

For the record, sacred Melville ended his chapter in a typically thoughtful way:

[P]ondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like willful travelers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him.

And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?

Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt? That's what Melville asked! 

At any rate, we Blues (correctly) note the president's apparent lack of empathy. He seems to display the absence of empathy, but what is the state of our own?

Tomorrow: The possible road not taken

Has Pete Buttigieg Removed Pronouns From His Bio? What We Know
Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg has removed his pronouns from his biography on X, formerly Twitter, according to a prominent account on the social media platform.

Screenshots from the Libs of TikTok account, which is run by conservative activist Chaya Raichik and has over 4 million followers, appear to show that Buttigieg deleted his "he/him" pronouns from the account.

Newsweek has contacted Buttigieg for comment via Facebook and Instagram direct messages.

SATURDAY: It's a disease, top newspaper says!

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2025

Ever so slowly they turn: Peter Baker, he of the New York Times, is an extremely clear-minded journalist. 

For that reason, it's odd to see him make this apparent minor mistake in a lengthy "news analysis" piece in today's print editions:

NEWS ANALYSIS
Shouting, Ranting, Insulting: Trump’s Uninhibited Second Term

[...]

Mr. Trump’s older brother, Fred Trump Jr., was an alcoholic and died in 1981 at the age of 43, a tragedy that deeply affected the future president. He has often ascribed his aversion to drinking to his brother’s decline. And he has used it as one of the only self-deprecating lines he typically offers. “Can you imagine if I had” been a drinker, he asked at one point in 2018. “What a mess I would be. I would be the world’s worst.”

It doesn't exactly matter. But according to the leading authority—and also according to his own daughter—Fred Trump Jr., the president's older brother, actually died in 1981 at the age of 42.

Fred Trump's daughter, Mary L. Trump, complains about this error by the New York Times at several points in her 2020 best-seller, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man. She seems to find the mistake emblematic of the slipshod way the nation's major mainstream news orgs have reported on the Trump family, and especially on her famous uncle, down through the many long years.

Her father died at age 42, not at age 43, she writes at several points. Five years after her book appeared, there is the highly competent Baker, repeating the same apparent mistake.

A person could see this as emblematic of the way our major news orgs disappeared key parts of Mary Trump's best-selling book. We refer to the parts of the book in which Mary Trump, a doctorate-wielding clinical therapist, lists the vast array of (potentially dangerous) "psychopathologies" which, she says, seem to be on display in her famous uncle's behavior.

Bowing to the rules of their guild, our mainstream journalists disappeared that part of Mary Trump's book. That brings us to this morning's "news analysis" piece, in which Baker—an exceptionally clear writer and thinker—lists the many peculiar behaviors in which President Trump has engaged in the last few months.

Next week, we expect to visit Baker's long list of recent strange behaviors by President Trump. For today, we want to direct your attention to an unusual statement which lurks inside Baker's piece.

Baker is a very clear writer. So why did he author the claim we highlight in the passage we've posted below?

At this point in his lengthy piece, Baker is writing about the recent statement in which Susie Wiles said that President Trump has "an alcoholic's personality." Baker notes that the president doesn't drink alcohol—but along the way, he says this:

Mr. Trump’s older brother, Fred Trump Jr., was an alcoholic and died in 1981 at the age of 43, a tragedy that deeply affected the future president. He has often ascribed his aversion to drinking to his brother’s decline. And he has used it as one of the only self-deprecating lines he typically offers. “Can you imagine if I had” been a drinker, he asked at one point in 2018. “What a mess I would be. I would be the world’s worst.”

But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has adamantly denied any cognitive issues, saying that he had taken three exams measuring his mental acuity, including one recently. “I ACED all three of them in front of large numbers of doctors and experts, most of whom I do not know,” he wrote online. “I have been told that few people have been able to ‘ace’ this Examination.”

But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has adamantly denied any cognitive issues, saying that he had taken three exams measuring his mental acuity, including one recently. “I ACED all three of them in front of large numbers of doctors and experts, most of whom I do not know,” he wrote online. “I have been told that few people have been able to ‘ace’ this Examination.”

Alcoholism is a disease, of course. So is narcissism, which Mr. Trump has in the past admitted to. “Narcissism can be a useful quality if you’re trying to start a business,” he wrote in one of his books. “A narcissist does not hear the naysayers.”

Narcissism "is a disease?" When did that become a fact? And why on earth—why in the world—did Peter Baker write that?

Let's start with the basic question: Is narcissism a disease? If it is, the leading authority on the condition doesn't seem to have heard:

Narcissism

Narcissism is a self-centered personality style characterized as having an excessive preoccupation with oneself and one's own needs, often at the expense of others. Named after the Greek mythological figure Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection, narcissism has evolved into a psychological concept studied extensively since the early 20th century, and it has been deemed highly relevant in various societal domains.

Narcissism exists on a continuum that ranges from normal to abnormal personality expression. While many psychologists believe that a moderate degree of narcissism is normal and healthy in humans, there are also more extreme forms, observable particularly in people who have a personality condition like narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), where one's narcissistic qualities become pathological, leading to functional impairment and psychosocial disability.

According to the leading authority, a moderate degree of narcissism seems to be normal and healthy—though something else is true:

On the extremes, narcissism can produce "a personality condition like narcissistic personality disorder"—and that condition has long been listed as a serious "mental illness."

In short, narcissism can be a "mental illness" (presumably, a "disease"), but it typically isn't. Double-checking, this is what Psychology Today has to say, in Q-and-A form, about the condition in question:

Narcissism

[...]

What’s the difference between narcissism and pathological narcissism?

Pathological narcissism, or narcissistic personality disorder, is rare: It affects an estimated 1 percent of the population, a prevalence that hasn't changed since clinicians started measuring it. The disorder is suspected when narcissistic traits impair a person’s daily functioning. That dysfunction typically causes friction in relationships due to the pathological narcissist's lack of empathy. It may also manifest as antagonism, fueled by grandiosity and attention-seeking. In seeing themselves as superior, the pathological narcissist naturally views everyone else as inferior and may be intolerant of disagreement or questioning.

Psychology Today seems to be in agreement with the leading authority. Plain old "narcissism" isn't a personality disorder (traditionally, a type of "mental illness"). It only rises to that (tragic / unfortunate) level in something like one percent of the population.

By definition, narcissistic personality disorder has traditionally been listed as a "mental illness" (and therefore, one supposes, as a "disease"). Narcissism all by itself isn't any such thing—and President Trump has certainly never copped to any such "disease."

 Why, then, did someone as sharp as Peter Baker present this matter the way he did? Let us offer a suggestion:

Our high-end journalists have floundered throughout, looking for ways to suggest that President Trump is "mentally ill" without coming right out and saying so. Right at the start of his analysis piece, Baker plays that euphemistic game in two (2) separate ways:

Shouting, Ranting, Insulting: Trump’s Uninhibited Second Term

It all might make more sense if he actually were drinking. By all accounts, President Trump doesn’t touch the stuff. So when his own chief of staff said that he has “an alcoholic’s personality,” she was talking about his larger-than-life nature rather than his consumption.

Yet in some ways, it may be an apt description for a president who seems even less inhibited than ever in a way that has many in Washington and beyond shaking their heads or even wondering if the leader of the free world has lost it. The word often whispered by Republicans and shouted by Democrats and Never Trumpers is “unhinged.”

According to Baker, many in Washington are wondering if President Trump has "lost it." Those people often whisper or shout the word "unhinged," he accurately reports.

"Unhinged" and "unfit" are two of the words our journalists have used to suggest an issue with mental health without coming right out and making that assertion. Now, very late in a lengthy essay, Baker seems to have President Trump copping to a "disease."

Is Baker inching toward a less euphemistic appraisal of President Trump's possible condition? If so, ever so slowly our journalists turn! This is the culture we're stuck with.

Concerning Wiles and Bill Clinton: At long last, have they no sense of decency? Also, could they possibly be that inept?

This morning, during the 6 o'clock hour, Fox & Friends Weekend staged a discussion about the Epstein files which, at least for us, recalled Joseph Welch's famous rebuke of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Hugh Hewitt, appearing as a guest, made the most astounding remark of the interview segment. True to form, co-host Charlie Hurt happily played along.

Next week, we'll show you what these floozies said. In a more righteous world, the various stars of this "cable news" channel would be frog-marched into the countryside for a long re-education regime from which they would, in the end, obtain their Ph.D.'s.

FRIDAY: It's right there in the DSM-5!

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2025

Is there any way this could be dangerous? It was once believed that an earlier potentate had named his horse to a seat in the Senate.

The Senate in question was that of Rome. According to the leading authority, this naming may never have happened:

Caligula

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, also called Gaius and Caligula, was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius became emperor. Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five years old. He had been named after Gaius Julius Caesar, but his father's soldiers affectionately nicknamed him "Caligula" ('little boot').

...Tiberius died in 37, and Caligula succeeded him as emperor, at the age of 24.

Of the few surviving sources about Caligula and his four-year reign, most were written by members of the nobility and senate, long after the events they purport to describe. For the early part of his reign, he is said to have been "good, generous, fair and community-spirited" but increasingly self-indulgent, cruel, sadistic, extravagant and sexually perverted thereafter, an insane, murderous tyrant who demanded and received worship as a living god, humiliated the Senate, and planned to make his horse a consul. Most modern commentaries instead seek to explain Caligula's position, personality and historical context. Some historians dismiss many of the allegations against him as misunderstandings, exaggeration, mockery or malicious fantasy.

[...]

Caligula shared many of the popular passions and enthusiasms of the lower classes and young aristocrats: public spectacles, particularly gladiator contests, chariot and horse racing, the theatre and gambling, but all on a scale which the nobility could not match. He trained with professional gladiators and staged exceptionally lavish gladiator games, being granted exemption by the senate from the sumptuary laws that limited the number of gladiators to be kept in Rome. He was openly and vocally partisan in his uninhibited support or disapproval of particular charioteers, racing teams, gladiators and actors, shouting encouragement or scorn, sometimes singing along with paid performers or declaiming the actors' lines, and generally behaving as "one of the crowd." In gladiator contests, he supported the parmularius type, who fought using small, round shields. In chariot races, he supported the Greens, and personally drove his favorite racehorse, Incitatus ("Speedy") as a member of the Green faction. Most of Rome's aristocracy would have found this an unprecedented, unacceptable indignity for any of their number, let alone their emperor.

[...]

Suetonius and Dio outline Caligula's supposed proposal to promote his favorite racehorse, Incitatus ("Swift"), to consul, and later, a priest of his own cult. This could have been an extended joke, created by Caligula himself in mockery of the senate. A persistent, popular belief that Caligula actually promoted his horse to consul has become "a byword for the promotion of incompetents," especially in political life. It may have been one of Caligula's many oblique, malicious or darkly humorous insults, mostly directed at the senatorial class, but also against himself and his family. Winterling sees it as an insult to the consulars themselves...David Woods believes it unlikely that Caligula meant to insult the post of consul, as he had held it himself. Suetonius, possibly failing to get the joke, presents it as further proof of Caligula's insanity, adding circumstantial details more usually expected of the senatorial nobility, including palaces, servants and golden goblets, and invitations to banquets.

Did Caligula really name "Speedy" as a consul? We have no idea. As for the claim that the emperor was "insane," we note again that the preferred language seems to be changing with respect to what is still widely known as "mental illness."

Stating the obvious, serious forms of what was once called "mental illness" are always a human tragedy. Indeed, if we regard some such "mental illness" as an actual illness, we may be disinclined to react to the behaviors which result as if they represented ethical choices made by the afflicted party.

(That doesn't mean that concerned parties may not work to make such behaviors stop, or to remove power from the afflicted party.)

We'll continue with this rumination on Monday, even as Christmas approaches. For today, we merely take note of today's key renaming—a high-profile renaming which took place right in our own nation's capital. 

This renaming is that of the Kennedy Center. In this morning's print editions, the New York Times reports:

WHITE HOUSE MEMO
As Trump Puts His Brand on Washington, the Kennedy Center Gets a New Name

President Trump’s takeover of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts reached its inevitable apogee on Thursday afternoon when it was announced that the center’s board of trustees had voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center.

Even though Mr. Trump had already been calling it that for months in trollish posts online, he acted shocked that his handpicked board had thought to do this for him.

“I was honored by it,” he told reporters at the White House. “The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.”

Earlier that day, he had called into a meeting of the board, which is now made up almost entirely of people who are loyal to him. (By law, there are a handful of members of Congress from both parties who sit on the board, as well.)

[...]

The performing arts center is, by law, designated the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts—it was built to be a living memorial to the slain 35th president—and it has been generally understood that the power to change the name lies with Congress.

"By law," that has always been the name. Today we had renaming, or at least an attempt at same.

At any rate, the president's name is now up on the wall of the Trump-Kennedy. Also, the East Wing is on the ground, and the ballroom just keeps getting bigger.

The proposed Arc de Trumpth has recently been discussed right there in the Oval Office. We've conquered the Gulf of America.

We return to our basic point:

Every (serious) "mental illness" is a human tragedy—a loss of human capability and potential. Because our culture tends instead to stigmatize such conditions, we lack the ability to talk about mental health and mental illness, except with respect to people who hear voices and engage in street crime.

Somewhere ages and ages hence, future journalists may have the ability to conduct fuller discussions of such conditions. For today, we ask you if this outline of characteristics sounds like anyone you know:

Grandiosity

In psychology, grandiosity is a sense of superiority, uniqueness, or invulnerability that is unrealistic and not based on personal capability. It may be expressed by exaggerated beliefs regarding one's abilities, the belief that few other people have anything in common with oneself, and that one can only be understood by a few, very special people. Grandiosity is a core diagnostic criterion for hypomania/mania in bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder 

Measurement

Few scales exist for the sole purpose of measuring grandiosity, though one recent attempt is the Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS), an adjective rating scale where one indicates the applicability of a word to oneself (e.g. superior, glorious).

Grandiosity is also measured as part of other tests, including the Specific Psychotic Experiences Questionnaire (SPEQ), Personality Assessment for DSM-5 (PID-5), Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, and diagnostic interviews for bipolar disorders and NPD. The Grandiosity section of the Diagnostic Interview for Narcissism (DIN), for instance, describes:

1. The person exaggerates talents, capacity, and achievements in an unrealistic way.
2. The person believes in their invulnerability or does not recognize their limitations.
3. The person has grandiose fantasies.
4. The person believes that they do not need other people.
5. The person over-examines and downgrades other people's projects, statements, or dreams in an unrealistic manner.
6. The person regards themself as unique or special when compared to other people.
7. The person regards themself as generally superior to other people.
8. The person behaves self-centeredly and/or self-referentially.
9. The person behaves in a boastful or pretentious way.

Specific manifestations

In narcissism

Grandiose narcissism is a subtype of narcissism with grandiosity as its central feature, in addition to other agentic and antagonistic traits (e.g., dominance, attention-seeking, entitlement, manipulation). The term "narcissistic grandiosity" is sometimes used as a synonym for grandiose narcissism.

In bipolar disorder

Grandiosity is a core diagnostic feature of the manic and hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder type 1 and 2, respectively. The presentation varies across disorder type, but generally manifests as extreme self-confidence associated with a bold, proactive pursuit of certain (often unrealistic) goals, including writing a book, publicity-seeking over ideas or inventions devised without appropriate knowledge, experience or expertise, or taking major risks (e.g., in business or with finances) on the assumption that one cannot fail.

And so on from there, at some length. As you can see:

According to the leading authority, grandiosity is a clinical diagnosis. It's found right there in the DSM-5. We add to our earlier question, creating a list of two:

Our questions:

1. Does that sound a bit like someone you know?
2. Is there any chance that this sort of thing could possibly be dangerous?

Tomorrow: Susie Wiles on President Clinton

Starting Monday: Empathy and illness