FRIDAY: Here's the report we'd recommend...

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2026

...on this September 11: We don't expect to be posting again until next week. On this specific September 11, here's the report we'd recommend:

Conservative Fmr. Appeals Court Judge Explains How Republicans Are Trying to ‘Steal’ Midterms in Shocking Column...

A former appeals court judge tore into Republicans in a lengthy piece describing how conservatives are prepping to...steal the upcoming midterm elections.

Michael Luttig, a George H.W. Bush appointee who served as an appeals court judge from 1991 to 2006, unloaded in a piece he penned for The New Republic on Thursday, entitled, “The Final Battle for America’s Democracy.”

And so on from there. With respect to the ongoing, current assault on the possibility of the American project, that's the report we'd recommend today.  

Here's the link to Luttig's piece in the New Republic. We don't see a paywall blocking the essay by this widely-celebrated, famously conservative former judge.

For what it's worth, Judge Luttig discussed this theory with Ali Velshi on the August 6 edition of The 11th Hour. To see that discussion, you can start by clicking here.   

For Judge Luttig's presentation of this thesis at his Substack site, you can simply click this

We've been hoping that Judge Luttig's presentations would gain a bit more attention in this dangerous, madness-powered time. Maybe his presentation in the New Republic will sprout a pair of wings.   

As always, please note this last important point: 

The fact that Judge Luttig says it doesn't necessarily make it true.


THURSDAY: Lawrence interviews Mary Peltola!

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2026

But also, the president's "mental health:" She appeared last night with Lawrence O'Donnell, but who is Mary Peltola? 

Who the heck is Mary Peltola? When it comes to pure Americanismbut also, when it comes to Americanism with a smilethat was a truly beautiful interview. 

Before we link you to what was said, this is an overview of the person in question:   

Mary Peltola   

Mary Sattler Peltola (born August 31, 1973) is an American politician and former tribal judge. She served as the U.S. representative from Alaska's at-large congressional district from 2022 to 2025. 

A member of the Democratic Party, she previously served as a judge on the Orutsararmiut Native Council's tribal court, was executive director of the Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Bethel city councillor, and member of the Alaska House of Representatives. As of 2026, Peltola is the most recent Democrat to have won statewide office or held the position in Alaska.   

Peltola was first elected to Congress in an August 2022 special election after the death of incumbent Don Young...

Peltola was re-elected to a full term in 2022. She lost re-election in 2024 to Nick Begich III. She is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2026, challenging incumbent senator Dan Sullivan.  

She once "won statewide office in Alaska?" In Alaska, congressperson is a statewide office. Alaska has only one member of Congress. That person serves the whole state.  

Come November, Peltola may win one of Alaska's Senate seats. This is also part of who this candidate is:   

Born Mary Sattler, Peltola is Yup'ik from the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta in Western Alaska and German-American. She was born in Anchorage on August 31, 1973. Her Yup'ik name is Akalleq (translation. the one who rolled). Her father was Ward Sattler, a German American from Nebraska. He moved to Alaska to be a pilot and teacher. Her mother, Elizabeth "LizAnn" Piicigaq Williams, is Yup'ik from Kwethluk, Alaska.

Mary Sattler grew up with her sister along the Kuskokwim River in the communities of Kwethluk, Tuntutuliak, Platinum, and Bethel. As a Yup'ik child, she began fishing with her father at the age of six. Her uncles taught her how to place nets to catch different kinds of fish. 

When she was 12, her father registered a boat in her name and she began fishing independently as a captain at 14. She traveled with her father while he campaigned for Congressman Don Young, later commercially fishing with her father during the summers... 

And so on from there. In our view, that is pure Americanism, one of roughly 330 million different examples of same.

("No people are uninteresting," Yevtushenko, in translation, once said.)

Upon reflection, we won't attempt to follow the richness of that overview by transcribing some of what was said during last night's interview with Lawrence. Instead, we'll strongly suggest that you watch MS NOW's videotape of the session.  

It runs slightly less than seven minutes, and it's filled with the miracle of Alaska. You'll quickly note that the candidate knows how to smile, a very good way to win votes. She's also concise and quite sharp.

Regarding the ongoing struggles of President Trump, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) appeared with Erin Burnett on Tuesday night. Burnett described the president's weird behavior over the weekendhis weird Truth Social posts.

At that point, she turned to Rep. Garcia. Here's part of what was said:  

BURNETT (9/8/26): Out front now, Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia. He's a top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. And I appreciate your time.

So, you know, as I said, this shouldn't be controversial, to just say that this is not okay, to have the president of the United States in this moment spending his time in this way. Are you hearing anything from your Republican colleagues just privately about their concerns about what Trump is doing, about his state of mind, about his focus?

GARCIA: Yes, I mean, look, I think the Republicans in Congress, I mean, many of them, are very concerned that the president continues to, what they believe, tank their chances this November. He's not focused on anything he said he would. A lot of them are concerned about his mental health.

I think that as a country, we should be, one, outraged. It's bizarre behavior. It's unhinged. I'm concerned about the mental health of the president, who is sending out these messages, what, 100 on a certain day. And they are just bizarre things. It's a bunch of slop. It's a bunch of things that insult our allies, things that are not true, and things that no American president should be doing.

It is an embarrassment to the White House, to our country, the way he's treating Canada and our North American allies. It's disrespectful. And we have to now wonder, isI mean, is Donald Trump fully there? I mean, that's something that a lot of us are actually wondering. 

He's falling asleep during meetings. He's saying bizarre things. And it's concerning that he's the president of the United States.

BURNETT: Look, what he's posting is concerning...

Good grief! Garcia specifically cited concerns about the president's "mental health." He did so right out of the gate, two separate times. 

After that, he went colloquial, but he continued asking if the president is "fully there." 

Burnett seemed to agree, seeming to say that the president's mental health is "concerning." But as you can see from the CNN transcript, she then posed a question about possible political "strategy" on Trump's part, and this highly unusual interchange came to an end.

Robert Garcia gave it a try. The moment quickly ended. 

The "journalists" know they mustn't go there. Our "journalists" refuse to discuss what seems to be sitting there right before everyone's eyes.


WEDNESDAY: They don't know how to report it, he said!

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2026

Isn't it phony to think so: They don't know how to report it, he said.   

We're speaking of Lawrence O'Donnell. He said it last night at 10:05, one minute into his opening monologue on his nightly program, The Last Word.

We're willing to give him a B for effort, but what he said just isn't true. 

You can see a partial tape of the monologue at the web site of The Last Word. Here's the headline at the site, along with the first thing it shows O'Donnell saying:

Lawrence: What are Trump’s deranged social media posts if not evidence of insanity?   

The American news media, understandably, has no idea how to cover a possibly insane president of the United States. That's movie stuff, an insane president. 

The American news media has no idea how to cover a president who could be slipping into dementia, as Donald Trump's father did.  That headline basically speaks for itself. Below it, you see the way O'Donnell's monologue began.   

That headline basically speaks for itself. Below it, you see the way the (partial) videotape of the monologue begins. 

What O'Donnell says there is of course absurdly inaccurate. The American news media, including all the other anchors on MS NOW, do in fact know the basic way to cover any topic.

How do you cover any topic? This is what you do:   

You interview carefully selected specialists in the given field. In this case, that would mean interviewing carefully selected medical specialists concerning the (fairly obvious) possibility that President Trump 1) is mentally ill in some serious way, or 2) is experiencing some serious degree of cognitive decline. 

Perhaps at the direction of MS NOW executives, Lawrence wasn't being truthful as he started last night. In fact, everyone in the media knows how to cover those possibilities, but they've all agreed that they won't ever do it. That includes Wallace and Melber and Hayes and Psaki, the anchors whose programs preceded O'Donnell's on MS NOW last night. 

We've shown you where the videotape at the Last Word web site starts. By clicking here, you can see the way the fuller monologue actually started.

The monologue about this topic actually started like this: 

O'DONNELL (9/8/26): The corruption and lawbreaking in the Trump regime is on a scale far beyond what we have ever seen before in American history. 

But 50 or 100 or two 200 years from now, the story that future historians will no doubt be fascinated by and drawn to more than any other Trump regime story...will probably be what appears to those historians to be the insanity of Donald Trump.   

The American news media, understandably, has no idea how to cover a possibly insane president of the United States. That's movie stuff, an insane president.

The American news media has no idea how to cover a president who could be slipping into dementia, as Donald Trump's father did.  

That's the fuller way he began. You'll note the convoluted language, in which he simply speculates about what someone else will probably say way off in the future.

You'll also note that, in Lawrence's assessment, even our historians will be taking a dive on this topic for at least the next fifty years. For the record, that's the way today's historians have behaved with respect to many basic parts of the political and journalistic history of the past forty years.

Again, you can watch the entire monologue about the possible insanity simply by clicking here, then by continuing to click. But make no mistake about the corruption:   

Something resembling a type of corruption is also found all through "the American news media"all through the orgs which won't report or discuss the astonishing possibility which is staring us all in the face.  

"Understandably," their bosses don't want their news orgs to get sued. The anchors and the reporters enjoy their status and their frequently rather large salaries.

The New York Times isn't reporting the presidential meltdown O'Donnell went on to describe. Quite weirdly, no one at Mediaite has posted the remarkable but fairly obvious assessments Lawrence went on to make.   

Everyone is running from this. Lawrence continues to try.

Also this: Lawrence mentioned "Natalie Harp" six times. We're sorry, but she isn't the story here.

To his credit, O'Donnell is trying harder than all the rest with respect to this fairly obvious state of affairs. 

The others have agreed to take a dive. That includes the historians.


BREAKING: We're told that Labor Day weekend is over!

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026

Reliable information: We've been reliably told that Labor Day weekend is officially over. On the other hand, we'll be off campus until middayon a mission of national import. though then again possibly not

It seems to us that a certain situation out in the world is perhaps becoming even more clearso clear that our tribunes may even start to take notice. (Click here, scan in particular for statement by Mary Trump.) But we may not be posting again today, and posting this week may be light.

We'll advise you to click as suggested above. You'll see Mary Trump use a technical term; "decompensating." If we post tomorrow, we'll attempt to explain what that word means in the current context.  

As always, the fact that she said what she said doesn't prove that it's right.


RAGE: Woke One was crazy, AOC has now said!

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2026

Our stay in the Little Boxes: We start today, as we often do, with the latest expressions of the madnessrather, of the dueling madnesseswhich now threaten the nation and the world. (We're using a colloquial term.)   

Construction first, permission later! As the New York Times reports, work on the Arch will soon begin:  
Trump to Break Ground on Arch Before Getting Approval  

President Trump is breaking ground on his 250-foot-tall triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, even before a federal review panel has approved the project.

Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, on Thursday announced plans for the excavation work.

“After a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch” he wrote in a social media post...

The rush to push ahead with work on the arch follows a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump, who has frequently embarked on large-scale changes to historic properties in Washington without approvals from Congress or anyone else. 
They'll seek permission later! The news report in the Washington Post includes this somewhat subjective point:
Trump officials say work will start on triumphal arch within two weeks   

[...]   

The administration plans to build the arch in Memorial Circle, a traffic roundabout tucked inside Washington’s boundaries near Arlington National Cemetery. Trump has said that the arch will honor the nation’s 250th anniversary, vowing that it will be the largest triumphal arch in the world — about 86 feet taller than France’s famed Arc de Triomphe.

Historical preservationists, Democratic lawmakers and some Washington residents have opposed the project, calling it an oversize and inappropriate structure that will disrupt the historically solemn corridor between the military cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial.
Until this year, we didn't know that the space between those two national sites is viewed as an "historically solemn corridor." That said, building will proceed as the clinically nutty sitting president seeks to transform the capital as a tribute to his own greatness.  

The announcement that construction will proceed calls attention to our nation's dueling madnesses:   

First, to the madness of the sitting president, a "madness" which may quite likely be clinical. Also, to the (purely colloquial) madness of a Blue American press corps which refuses to discuss the possibility that something is (clinically) wrong with world's most powerful person.   

At any rate, we start today with the Lincoln Memorial for a particular reason. 

We first went there in the mid- to late-1970s with a group of fifth grade kids from the Baltimore City Schools. We ourselves were something like 27 at the time. ("Just a kid like you.")

It became a seminal day in our life, such as that life has been. It became a seminal day when we read the text of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which is engraved on one of the memorial's inner walls.  

We recall being stunned by what we read. Included was the text shown below, including one of the most astounding assessments ever produced in English. 

In this passage, Lincoln is speaking about the Civil Warabout who was responsible for it, about the price which was being paid for the practice which was its cause. Without wasting much time, the rail-splitter told the world this:
Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1865

[...]

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. 

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. 

The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. 

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." 

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? 

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."   
 Yikes! Lincoln was supposing that God was giving the war to both North and South "as the woe due to those by whom the offense" which caused the war had come!

That was part of what Lincoln had said! Surrounded by (very good) Baltimore kids, we recall our instant reaction. It involved the thought that Abraham Lincoln hadn't been humanthat no actual human being had ever expressed such a thought.

We did this too, the rail-splitter said. Knowing the war was about to end, he even added this:   
If we in the North are forced to pay the ultimate price in life and treasure, no one can say that God's judgments aren't righteous and true forever.
That was the astounding extent to which he was willing to say, to those on his side:
We did this awful thing too. ("We are not enemies, but friends.")
We still find it hard to believe that a human being ever delivered such an address. We offer this to bridge a gap for us over here in Blue America, in our current situation. 

We refer back to the overview offered by Michelle Goldberg, who we regard as unusually lucid. Dreaming of another civil war, she said that we in Blue America are more abused than abuser at the present time: 
Why Do We Keep Imagining a New Civil War?

[...]

For at least the last decade, a florid, aggressive contempt has been a constant in our politics. Donald Trump, after all, doesn’t just shower liberal cities and states with insults (and, in a demented A.I. video he posted, with excrement). His presidency has been devoted to punishing the places that didn’t vote for him, including by withholding health care and disaster funding. One of the things his voters have long loved about him is the humiliation and despair he causes their fellow citizens.

Many of those Trump partisans are still smarting over Hillary Clinton calling some of them “deplorables.” For decades they’ve been seething at the disrespect they feel emanating from America’s cultural capitals. It seems obvious to me that blue America is more abused than abuser, but that doesn’t really matter; the impossibility of coming to any agreement about the commensurability of our grievances just underlines the toxicity of the relationship.     
We agree! In these ongoing days of ragein the age defined by "The Rage of Trump," supplanting the earlier Rage of Achilleswe agree that Blue America is, on balance, "more abused than abuser."   

Over a broader sweep of time, we'd say that assessment's less obvious. We'd start with the astounding insult delivered in the well-loved song of the liberal 1960s, "Little Boxes."

We liberals loved that song! This was Malvina Reynolds (and Pete Seeger) describing the lesser beings found inside those comically small abodes:
Little Boxes

[...]

And the people in the houses
All went to the university...
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.  
The people "were all made out of ticky-tacky?" Yes, that's what our troubadours sang as we insulted our tribal inferiors.

(To hear Pete Seeger sing it that way, you can just click here. To see him sing it that way in Sweden, you can just click this. Everybody makes mistakes, and that even includes Pete Seeger.)

The little boxes which inspired the song filled the hillsides of Daly City, just south of San Francisco along the Pacific coast. They were, in fact, very small, and they were set quite close together.

The houses did make a remarkable sight. Also, the houses did all look the same.

Uh-oh! Here's the problem:

At the time the song was written, our Aunt Connie lived in one of the Little Boxes with our younger cousin Diane. (Today, they would perhaps be dismissed as Karens.) 

When our family moved from Massachusetts to California in the summer of 1960, the three of us stayed with them in their "little box" until our mother, concluding a whirlwind search, bought a house in San Mateo. 

(For the record, the little boxes were quite likely lower middle-class housing. Their residents hadn't "all gone to the university," as the song rather oddly claimed.)

Unfortunate insults, Blue to Red, are common within our nation's modern history. We Blues aren't always able to see the way our comments sound to the many deplorables who aren't part of our own tribethe way our sneering may persuade some people to vote the other way. 

Beyond that, our imperfections as a tribe frequently take other forms. At present, the foolishness of various parts of the DSA platform are keeping MAGA hopes alive for November's elections. As they do, they remind us that peculiar assessments can emerge from well-intentioned human beings in every conceivable tribe. No one has perfect insight.

In various waysPresident Biden's still unexplained border policy?we Blues helped send the current president to his current term in the White House. As with every human tribe, this fact can be hard for us in our own tribe to see.  

"Woke One was crazy," AOC has now said. In the future, should we possibly think about speaking up in real time?

THURSDAY: "Lunatic," the headline says!

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2026

Mental illness, conjured as insult: There he went again.

For starters, there's no reason to assume that anything the president said was actually accuratetrue. There's no reason to assume that the president actually has a friend who is "very obese" but is also "a brilliant guy"—is also "smart, vicious, wild."

Having offered that disclaimer, here was the president, at the White House, going there once again. He was telling his story about the friend who was forced to pay too much for Ozempic. 

Blue America has pushed back today. We join the president's rambling presentation in progress:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (9/2/26):  ...As an example, the United Kingdom. We had a very, very serious problem. 

United Kingdom would pay ten cents for a pill. And we pay two dollars for the same pillor for the fat drug, as I say.

You know, a friend of minevery, very heavy. He's a very obese person. I said, "You're an extremely obese person." But he's a brilliant guy. He's a Wall Street guy. He's a brutal, brutal man, butsmart as hell, but he's got a serious weight problem.

And he called me up, and he's from New Yorkhe's one of the top guys on Wall Street. He's begging mebecause I've told the story a couple of timesnot to mention his name because I'll destroy his reputation. But he's tough as hell and he's smart, vicious, wild. These are the people you have to deal with when you're president. 

He used to call me Donny, now he calls me president. He'd say, "Donny." Now he calls me "President." I'm shocked he does that, actually. That shows respect.

But he said, "You know, Mr. President, I was in London, and I paid $86 for Ozempic. And in New York, I pay $1,300 for the same thing."

That's a lot! That's a big difference. And I had it checked outcomes from the same factory, it comes from the same place, and then they have some other fat drugs.

I said, "Are you taking this stuff?"

"Yeah."

I said, "It's not working. You look like shit."

I said it's not working. But he got me going...

To watch this ramble in full, click here for the C-Span videotape. Move ahead to the 28-minute mark. We remind you that mental illness is a human tragedy, as is the loss of cognition.

The president rambled on from there, discussing the cost of various drugs here and in other lands. At Raw Story but also at HuffPost, reports criticized the president for his unusual remarks about his extremely obese, vicious friend.

Again, we know of no reason to assume that any such person exists. But from within the world of Blue American commentary, Aaron Rupar offered this reaction to Acyn's shortened, paraphrased text:

I continue to think the fact the president is a lunatic is the biggest story in politics. Your mileage may vary.

In principle, we agree with what Rupar said. We think the fact that the president may be suffering "obvious cognitive decline," layered atop "decades of untreated psychiatric disorders," is the biggest unreported, undiscussed story in the full range of world affairs.   

That said, consider the way Rupar chose to express his assessment. Consider his turn to the use of an insult.  Headline included, Raw Story started like this:   

'Lunatic': Trump's 'obese friend' rant at White House backfires instantly

President Donald Trump detoured into a bizarre rant about an obese "friend" while speaking at a dinner event he was holding at the Rose Garden on Wednesday.

"A friend of mine is a very obese person," said Trump. "I said, you're an extremely obese person. He's begging me not to mention his name because I'll destroy his reputation. He had some fat drugs. I said: it's not working—you look like (expletive)."

The comment triggered both mockery from commenters on social media, and a bit of speculation on who the friend in question was.

"Checking in on Trump's midterm messaging," said the official account for the liberal platform Meidas Touch.

"I continue to think the fact the president is a lunatic is the biggest story in politics. Your mileage may vary," wrote reporter Aaron Rupar.

"Lunatic," Rupar said. Raw Story went full headline.   

For ourselves, we would assume that the president's rambling presentation may fit within the category of "likely cognitive decline."  Rupar selected a word associated with mental illness and threw it out as an insult.

At this site, we've long suggested that a significant "mental illness" is an actual illness. We've long suggested that this would be a more intelligent way to discuss such phenomena.

Given our current state of cultural development, the concept still doesn't play that way in our own Blue American world. We think we Blues would get better results if we played it in accord with the shape of medical science.


RAGE: What explains the rage of the right?

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2026

Wehner sidesteps Trump: Is it possible that the sitting president, in an act of rage, could go ahead and destroy the world?   

Almost everything's possible! As concisely reported by Kathryn Wilkens, here's what one medical specialist has now said:   

Nobel Prize-Winning Psychiatrist Warns He’s Seeing Signs That Trump Could Drop a Nuke ‘In a Fit of Pique or Rage’   

Dr. Henry Abraham, a psychiatrist who shared in the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, warned Wednesday that he is seeing signs President Donald Trump could use a nuclear weapon “in a fit of pique or rage or confusion.”

Abraham received the honor as a member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. He was also among 36 physicians who signed an April letter entered into the congressional record calling for Trump’s removal from office, claiming he is mentally unfit to serve.

His comments came on a Wednesday edition of The Dean Obeidallah Show. When asked by host Dean Obeidallah about his April letter and if “anything’s changed,” Abraham responded, “Yeah. If anything, it’s worse.”

As you can see in the videotape included by Wilkens, Dr. Abraham went on to say this:   

"We have a system which enfolds the president's health in a shroud of secrecy, which is, under ordinary circumstances, might be indicated. But when a person has sole access to the nuclear armamentaria, it’s crazy, and this is what we’re doing. I think, you know, we’re in even more danger of Donald Trump using a nuclear weapon in a fit of pique or rage or confusion or poor impulse control than ever before. So yes, he’s more dangerous."

Dr. Abraham is 84. As you can see in the videotape, he remains highly articulate. Let's try to be clear ourselves:   

Dr. Abraham says we have "a system which enfolds the president's health in a shroud of secrecy." In part, that might be said to include the journalistic agreement, honored by every major news org, according to which concerns about a sitting president's mental health must never be reported and must never be discussed.   

"Under ordinary circumstances," Dr. Abraham says, such agreements "might be indicated." But in our current circumstance, a system which maintains secrecy and silence has become "crazy," he says. 

The traditional practice is no longer indicated, he says. This has been our way of making that point about the press corps' agreement to maintain silence:

It was always a good journalistic ruleuntil the time came when it wasn't.

At present, we're whistling past the graveyard. The sitting president's behavior seems to be increasingly strange.

Dr. Abraham is only one medical specialist. He's expressing one person's assessmenthis own.   

That said, how likely is it that the current sitting president could use a nuclear weapon “in a fit of pique or rage or confusion?" 

How likely is it? We don't have the slightest idea. But the "confusion" to which Dr. Abraham refers seems increasingly present, a possible product of what the president's niece has called an "obvious cognitive decline." 

Meanwhile, the "rage" to which Dr. Abraham refersthe rage of Trump and Cheung and the resthas been remarkably constant. 

Writing in the Atlantic, former Republican speechwriter Peter Wehner called it "The Wrath of MAGA." He was describing the rage directed at Jon Ossoff (and at a CNN correspondent) in the wake of an insinuation about Trump and the lady with whom he allegedly wants to travel around, inside "their palace."

(To our ear, the insinuation seemed fairly obvious. Other assessments have differed.)

Remarkable acts of tribal rage were visited on the senator, but also on the CNN correspondent. But when Wehner tried to explain the source of the rage, he explained the rage of the president's supporters, not that of the president himself:

The Wrath of MAGA 

[...]   

So why did MAGA world respond as it did? One explanation is psychological. In 2016, Trump found a constituency already primed for grievance, and taught it to want more. His supporters have kept themselves in a state of frenzy ever since. They need to be perpetually outraged, aggrieved, and insulted. MAGA world has become addicted to the feeling. It delivers a jolt of adrenaline, it provides a feeling of social belonging, and it gives people a sharpened sense of purpose. They see themselves as warriors in a drama of their own construction. They view their opponents—Democrats, progressives, critics of Trump—as personifications of evil. Inflicting pain on their enemies feels good, really good, and it feels just.

Trump is aware of all of this. It’s why, during the 2024 campaign, he spoke directly to his supporters, saying, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.” 

The attacks on Ossoff are also a response to Trump’s collapsing support and the fracturing MAGA movement. Trump’s supporters need to find a common enemy. The Ossoff comments have given them a chance to lash out, to go on the offensive, and to shake feelings of powerlessness and impending doom. At a time when defending Trump is nearly impossible, attacking his opponents becomes imperative.  

Strange! Having recorded the rage which was expressed by Trump himself and by his lieutenants, Wehner went on to offer an explanation for the rage of Trump's "constituency"for the supposed rage of the president's "supporters." 

Having reported the rage of Group A, Wehner went on to explain the alleged rage of Group B. 

Without demonstrating that some such rage exists, Wehner went on to say that the explanation for that rage is "psychological." 

All in all, that was bungled worka bit of bungled work from a very good, decent person. Wehner seemed to slip-slide away from Group A. Did the Atlantic have no editor who could spot this logical problem?   

We close today with two basic points:  

Quite probably, the rage which frequently erupts from the president himself does have a "psychological" origin. In that passage, Wehner became the latest major journalist to sidestep this obvious possibility.

Beyond that, we'll tell you this:   

Even now, President Trump has tens of millions of supporters. On a psychological basis, some of them "need to be perpetually outraged, aggrieved, and insulted." On the other hand, a whole lot of them surely don't.   

In that passage, it seems to us that Wehner has done what we Blues frequently do. He has lumped all "the others" together, describing them in a way which sounds a bit insulting.  

Sadly, the president's supporters have plenty of legitimate objections to the world we Blues inhabit and create. Tomorrow, we'll take a journey down a few of those lanes.

We Blues can be the "abusers" too! We'll even mention sacred Thoreau, composing his most famous text on the shore of Concord's celebrated Ivanka Melania Pond.

Tomorrow: "More abused than abuser?"


WEDNESDAY: We thought of a very convincing film...

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

...when we saw Psaki speak with Pat Ryan: The late John Frankenheimer began his career with several remarkable movies. We'll let the leading authority explain:

John Frankenheimer  

John Michael Frankenheimer (February 1930 – July 2002) was an American film and television director, known both for his social dramas and his action/suspense pictures. Among his best-known theatrical film credits are Birdman of Alcatraz, The Manchurian Candidate (both 1962) [and] Seven Days in May, The Train (both 1964).

And so on from there. We recall being moved by Birdman of Alcatraz down at The Palm, when it came out, back when we were 14. That said, wow:

He had made the complex and brooding Manchurian Candidate when he was barely thirty. And then, just two years later, he made the highly convincing Seven Days in May.   

We flashed on that last film just last evening. Once again, the authority explains:   

Seven Days in May   

Seven Days in May is a 1964 American political thriller film, directed by John Frankenheimer and written by Rod Serling, who adapted Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II's 1962 novel. It is about a military–political cabal's planned takeover of the U.S. government after the president negotiates a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. The film stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner. 

Written by Rod Serling! It even starred Ava Gardner, who had plainly been cast in the Ava Gardner role.

The authority calls it a "political thriller;" you can spot its topic yourself. We'd call it remarkably convincing, and we'd call it a very strong warning for us at this very dangerous time.

But yes! Seven Days in May convincingly shows Burt Lancaster in the role of a charismatic, angry Air Force general who is planning a coup d'etat with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Luckily for the fate of the world, Kirk Douglas was in the film too.

The well-made film remains quite convincing. We thought of this very good movie just last evening as we watched The Briefing with Jen Psaki.  

Late in her hour, Psaki interviewed Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. 

Ryan served as a military intelligence officer in the U.S. Army from 2004 to 2009. Before his election to Congress in 2022, he served as county executive in New York's Ulster County.

Ryan is quite solid. At this time, he's concerned about what could be on the horizon:

PSAKI (9/1/26): I could answer this myself, but I'm more interested in your thought. I mean, we're six months into this war. It seems like the only person who hasn't been fired is Pete Hegseth. Why do you think that is?  

RYAN: This is the question that actually, legit, keeps me up at night, which is why do you keep around a totally incompetent, clueless clown, frankly? And like, there aren't many good reasons to do that. There are some really scary reasons that allude to your question about troops being deployed under the Insurrection Act or, God forbid, around elections. 

So that's what really scares me. Not only are we losing this war, which pains me to say that, but we have to be honest that we are. But he's keeping around this guy, I think, for really dangerous, un-American contingencies. And so, we have to just up the pressure now.   

Ryan is nobody's dope. Is that why Hegseth remains where he is? "God forbid," for the possibility of having troops deployed in connection with some unnamed year's elections?   

Ryan is nobody's dope. We thought of a very convincing "political thriller" as we watched his full session with Psaki.


RAGE: Wehner starts to explain red rage!

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2026  

But first, the rage of Vance: We applaud the news judgment on display in this morning's New York Times.  

The report in question appears online, but also in print editions. Yesterday afternoon, we briefly cited this inexcusable, dangerous incident:    

Vance Calls El-Sayed ‘Evil’ in No-Holds-Barred Michigan Speech    

Vice President JD Vance called Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee and an outspoken critic of Israel, “very, very evil” at a campaign rally near Detroit on Monday and accused him of heightening racial and religious divisions.

“I realize that there’s something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil and on the rise in the United States of America today,” Mr. Vance said at the event at a warehouse in Sterling Heights hosted by MAGA Inc., President Trump’s super PAC.

Mr. Vance was in Michigan campaigning for former Representative Mike Rogers, Dr. El-Sayed’s Republican opponent in one of the nation’s most hotly contested Senate races this fall. The vice president’s remarks appeared aimed at stoking tensions between Dr. El-Sayed and Michigan’s Jewish community, which the Democrat has been attempting to allay since winning his party’s bitter primary against a pro-Israel opponent in early August.

As you can see, that New York Times headline is actually wrong. Vance didn't call El-Sayed "evil." He went with very, very evil! 

(For the Times report, click here.)

“Very, very evil!” With that, you see the (modulated) rage of Vance, utilized in service to some very, very bad judgment. 

Dear friends, listen up:   

Especially at a time like this, "evil" is a dangerous word when stapled onto a person. Even on Fox News Channel shows, it's very rare to hear that word directly attached to a person.    

Why would Vance behave this way? For one possible answer, consider the abusive upbringing Vance describes in his best-selling book from 2016, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. 

The "family in crisis" in that book is the family within which Vance was raised. The family he was forced to navigate as a child was deeply, profoundly disordered.

He described his life as a child, and then as a teen, within a family so deeply disordered that the moral exemplar of the familyVance's maternal grandmotheris best remembered for deliberately setting her husband on fire, with lighter fluid deliberately added, while he tried to sleep off an episode of (once again) having drunk too much. 

This is the world in which Vance was forced to grow up! Years back, we said we found it hard to believe that a child subjected to the astounding disorder described in that book could avoid being badly affected. 

"And so it did happen like it could have been foreseen...?" The cheerful young man who discussed that book in 2016 turned into the grasping office-seeker in 2024 who spread a story he knew to be false about Haitians eating the dogs and cats of unsuspecting Springfield, Ohio. 

It was an astonishing break with the simplest forms of decency. And yesterday, there he stood, in Michigan, displaying extremely bad judgment.  

Could yesterday's description of El-Sayed be called the rage of Vance? He tends to speak in modulated tones. You can teach it flat or round.  

That said, it's much as Michelle Goldberg recently described:

Expressions of "a florid, aggressive contempt" are now "a constant in our politics." We agree with Goldberg on this additional point: 

The bulk of this florid, destructive rage currently comes from the right. 

Currently comes from the right! It's the rage of Trump and the rage of Cheung and the rage of those employed beneath them. Or as Peter Wehner describes it in the Atlantic, it's the critter his headline calls "The Wrath of MAGA."

Strikingly, when Jon Ossoff floated an insinuation, that rage (that "wrath") exploded:

The Wrath of MAGA

[...]

The White House tore into Ossoff...

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said Ossoff is “a miserable person who hates this country.” He also referred to Ossoff as “Jon Jerkoff” and as “the biggest cuck loser in politics.” 

The White House spokesperson Davis Ingle referred to him as a “cringeworthy feminine theater kid” and a “lightweight loser.” 

When the CNN reporter Kristen Holmes asked about Ossoff’s comments, the White House Official Rapid Response X account responded by saying, “Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive.” 

The reference to Holmes' two young children was especially astonishing. That astounding assault from an anonymous White House team moved well beyond previous boundaries. 

As we noted yesterday, Wehner omitted the fury which Trump himself directed at Kristen Holmes. But "the Rage Machine was in full operation," Wehner correctly said. 

(For the record: Peter Wehner, age 61, was a speechwriter for the three previous Republican presidents. He isn't a liberal squish.)

As is frequently the norm within the Red Rage, sexual insult and attempts at gender insult spewed from the troops in the White House. Ossoff was denounced as "a cuck." His name was changed to "Jerkoff." Inevitably, he was mocked as a feminine kid.

(On Fox, the rage of Gutfeld routinely traffics in sexual / gender insult. It sometimes seems to be the only language he and his panelists know.) 

Eventually, Wehner tried to explain where this "Wrath of MAGA" comes from. We'd say he took a halting first step. Here's how his effort began:

WEHNER: So why did MAGA world respond as it did? One explanation is psychological. In 2016, Trump found a constituency already primed for grievance, and taught it to want more. His supporters have kept themselves in a state of frenzy ever since. They need to be perpetually outraged, aggrieved, and insulted. MAGA world has become addicted to the feeling. It delivers a jolt of adrenaline, it provides a feeling of social belonging, and it gives people a sharpened sense of purpose. They see themselves as warriors in a drama of their own construction. They view their opponents—Democrats, progressives, critics of Trump—as personifications of evil. Inflicting pain on their enemies feels good, really good, and it feels just.

Trump is aware of all of this. It’s why, during the 2024 campaign, he spoke directly to his supporters, saying, “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.” 

What explains the current profusion of red rage / fury / wrath? In that passage, Wehner starts to try to explain. 

He takes a halting first step. Presumably, the president's rage might spring from one source, the rage of (some of) his supporters from another. 

Not all of the president's supporters are locked in a state of red rage. Obviously, not all his supporters view Democrats as "personifications of evil."

But Wehner, the former Republican speechwriter, says that Trump "found a constituency already primed for grievance" back when he first went to the White House.  

What might explain that incipient rage? What might explain the president's rage?

What explains "the wrath of MAGA?" In the course of the next two days, we'll flirt with some explanations.  

Tomorrow: Sources of (deeply destructive) rage


TUESDAY: No one gets shot, this nutcase says...

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026

...for being compared to a cow: Last night, during Segment 3, Greg Gutfeld once again recited the dumbest, phoniest rationalization in all of human history.   

Once again, he was explaining why it didn't matter! Why it didn't matter in the good old days when he was pleasuring himself, night after night, by comparing the women of The Five to elephants, cattle, horses and whales, and occasionally just to "livestock."

He used to do it pretty much every night. Now it's very rare. We're guessing that his corporate owner, for whatever reason, called this little nut into her office and told him he had to stop.  

(The cattle comparisons are now. Women still get insulted for allegedly being ugly, or for being displeasing in various ways to this freakish, demented sex god.)

Why was it OK for this corporate tool to express his loathing of women in that pitiful, broken-souled manner? In the midst of one of the dumbest segments ever aired on TV, the termagant offered this theoretic, as he's done several times in the past:  

GUTFELD (8/31/26): Not to make this a left-right thing, but I will. 

Like, the left calls us horrible names that get us killedlike "Nazi," or they add "phobe" to everything. They put targets on our backs. But they call us "mean" if we will, like, trash talk.  

But trash talking doesn't get anyone hurt. Joy Behar isn't going to get killed because I called her fat.   

We semi-agree with one part of that. 

We don't see a lot of people getting called "Nazis" in our daily rounds. But like many others in Blue America, we think that we Blues have tended to engage in too much name-calling of the type Gutfeld is constantly crying about. 

We think it's bad politics for the left, and we think such characterizations routinely tend to be not especially bright. Some such characterizations do strike us as dangerous. That includes the way JD Vance just called a Senate candidate "very evil," and it includes the very dangerous way Gutfeld and his irresponsible guests sometimes enjoy characterizing Dr. Fauci.

Let's be clear about one additional point. People don't typically call this little creep "mean." They much more typically call him "misogynist." It's hard to see why they wouldn't.

Meanwhile, sad! In the course of that foolishness, he pretends that he's simply been calling Joy Behar "fat." That's his way of refusing to describe the actual way he has gone about the daily rounds of insulting Behar and her colleagues.

(Meanwhile, Behar is 83. Does this sick little freak ever stop?)

In closing, yeshe actually said it! This is what he said:   

Joy Behar isn't going to get killed because I called her fat.   

That's almost surely correct! Almost surely, no one is going to murder someone because someone else called that person fat. 

Astoundingly, that has been this little creep's self-justification in recent years. If they don't get killed, it's OK!

For reasons everyone except his bonehead guests understands, his behavior isn't OK. And of course, the ridiculous way he tries to excuse himself makes it clear that he knows that, just like everyone else.   

Two final name drops:   

Kat Timpf had nothing to say about this bullshit last night. Then again, she never does.   

Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott puts this swill on the air. The corporation is making money off this atavistic plea to viewers who don't know better yet.

Sadly, teen-age boys watch this show. So do teenage girls. Young people deserve much better from creepy boys like Gutfeld.


RAGE: Rage of Trump, rage of Cheung!

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026

Red rage in a dangerous time: In Wallace Stevens' famous poem, his protagonist "dreams a little, and feels the dark encroachment of that old catastrophe."  

Within a totally different context, Michelle Goldberg seems to be imagining the possibility of another American civil war. Because her basic portrait is so well stated, we'll include it here again:   

Why Do We Keep Imagining a New Civil War?

[...]

For at least the last decade, a florid, aggressive contempt has been a constant in our politics. Donald Trump, after all, doesn’t just shower liberal cities and states with insults (and, in a demented A.I. video he posted, with excrement). His presidency has been devoted to punishing the places that didn’t vote for him, including by withholding health care and disaster funding. One of the things his voters have long loved about him is the humiliation and despair he causes their fellow citizens.

Many of those Trump partisans are still smarting over Hillary Clinton calling some of them “deplorables.” For decades they’ve been seething at the disrespect they feel emanating from America’s cultural capitals. It seems obvious to me that blue America is more abused than abuser, but that doesn’t really matter; the impossibility of coming to any agreement about the commensurability of our grievances just underlines the toxicity of the relationship.  

"The impossibility of coming to any agreement about the commensurability of our grievances just underlines the toxicity of the relationship?"   

As an extremely minor criticism, we'd have to say it's hard to fit that language on a bumper sticker. But having said that, it's true:

An aggressive contempt is indeed a constant in today's politics. And we agree that, in this current (ongoing) decade of Trump, Red America has been more the abuser. 

We also agree on this point:

When it comes to our two Americas (Red and Blue), the current "toxicity of the relationship" has been driven along, during this era, by the endless stream of "insults" from one major sourceby the stream of insults which emanate from the rage of President Trump. 

What is the source of the president's rage? We'll guess that that is, in large part, a question for medical specialists. Both his brothers prepped at St,]. Paul. By the end of seventh grade, his behavior was so aggressive, his niece (and others) have reported, that he was shipped off to "reform school."

Was a human tragedy already in place? Of one thing you can be sureyour journalists won't report these unfortunate facts, and they won't speak to medical specialists about what these early manifestations might have meant.

In fairness, the rage of Trump hardly sets him apart within the current world of Red America. As the week proceeds, we'll puzzle about the possible source of so much undisciplined, unrestrained fury.   

That said, the rage of Trump has taken us to a place where this country has rarely gone in the past. 

As her column proceeds, Goldberg discusses a pair of new novels whose authors seem to be imagining the possibility of a new civil war. It's the fury and rage of Trump which make that state of affairs almost imaginable.   

We recently saw that fury acted out in the rages of Trump and Cheung.   

On Sunday, August 16, Jon Ossoff made a surprising, somewhat florid remark in which he named one of the president's closest aides. In our view, the general insinuation was fairly obvious. Large sections of Blue America have disagreed with that view. 

European literature began with the rage of Achillesa rage concerning male ownership of kidnapped young women. In the Atlantic, long-time Republican Peter Wehner described the rage of Trump, and of those around him, in reaction to Ossoff's remark, original dual headline included:

The Wrath of MAGA
Those three words—travel with Natalie—sent MAGA world into paroxysms of rage that have yet to subside.

[...]

Natalie [was] a reference to Natalie Harp, the president’s 35-year-old special assistant...

What Trump’s defenders heard in Ossoff’s line was innuendo. The White House tore into Ossoff...

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said Ossoff is “a miserable person who hates this country.” He also referred to Ossoff as “Jon Jerkoff” and as “the biggest cuck loser in politics.” 

The White House spokesperson Davis Ingle referred to him as a “cringeworthy feminine theater kid” and a “lightweight loser.” 

When the CNN reporter Kristen Holmes asked about Ossoff’s comments, the White House Official Rapid Response X account responded by saying, “Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive.” 

For his part, the president responded to Holmes' question referred to Ossoff as a “Pee-wee Herman look-alike.” The MAGA ecosystem—podcast hosts, radio-talk-show hosts, political commentators, and others—followed suit. The Rage Machine was in full operation.  

So it wentso it partially wentwhen "the [White House] Rage Machine" went into full operation.

Wehner didn't include what eventually happened when the rage of Trump was directed at the CNN correspondent.

She had asked the world's most obvious question. This is the question she asked:   

HOLMES (8/17/26): Yesterday, Jon Ossoff said he'd rather travel with your aide, Natalie Harp, and build the ballroom than do your job as president. 

What is your response to Jon Ossoff?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: You mean Pee-Wee Herman? Pee-Wee Herman lookalike? No, I would much rather do other things. 

What is your response to Jon Ossoff! Holmes had asked the world's most obvious question. Assuming emotional and intellectual competence, the president could have responded in any way he chose.   

At that point, he chose to engage in some silly name-calling. Roughly ten minutes later, as Holmes tried to ask a different question, his rage unloaded as shown:

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet. You’re very disrespectful...  

Quiet! Who are you with?  

HOLMES: I'm with CNN. 

TRUMP: Fake news. You’re fake news. You’re a loud, boisterous person. You’re fake news. 

Be quiet. Be quiet. You’re a fake reporter, and you report fake news. 

In truth, Holmes is neither loud nor boisterous.  As noted, she'd started by asking the world's most obvious question. 

This was a fairly obvious case of the pot calling the kettle fake. Needless to say, the rage quickly spread. Just to establish a record, here is the initial tweet from the White House entity called "Rapid Response 47:"

RAPID RESPONSE 47 (8/17/26): @KristenhCNN is a disgraceful, humiliating embarrassment to her alleged profession.

@POTUS hosts a hero lifeguard in the Oval Office and she uses it as an opportunity to take a cheap shot about one of President Trump's staffers.

These scumbags are the lowest of the low.

Holmes was now a "scumbag." Idiotic and pitiful as that was, the language soon became even more derangedmore warlike. As noted by Wehner, the rage directed at Holmes now produced this second assault:   

RAPID RESPONSE 47: Someday, your children will come across your disgusting and inhumane question. They will be sickened and embarrassed to have a parent be so callous and vindictive.

Astoundingly, the entities in thrall to this rage had brought the journalist's young children in. This level of rage has rarely emerged from the top of American politics.

For the record, you'll note the ugly, demented sexual content of the instant rage of Cheung:

Cheung quickly turned Senator Ossoff's name into the pitiful "Jerkoff." In the deranged manner of these disordered men, he then called Ossoff a "cuck."   

The disordered Davis Ingle followed. According to Ingle, Ossoff was a "feminine theater kid.” 

Sexuality has always been hard, dating back to the gruesome war against Troy. That said, no modern nation can expect to survive the current astounding level of unregulated, braindead tribal rage coming from the types of people who serve with the soul-drained and furious Cheung.

Where has this Red rage come from? Eventually, Wehner took a shot at explaining.

Tomorrow: What Wehner said


MONDAY: The way our Blue world can look to the Reds!

MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2026

What the good person Sellers said: This very morning, we emitted an inexcusable thought. 

We referred to something Caroline Sunshine said on CNN last Thursday night. 

We admired her for having said it. This was our own account, this very morning, of what was said:

In Red America, the focus will turn to the peculiar (and still unexplained) border policies of the Biden administration. Attention may be drawn—as Caroline Sunshine did last week on CNN—to the rape and murder of girls and young American women by unauthorized immigrants who crossed the unattended southern border during the Biden years.   

To see Sunshine's presentation, just click here. (For the CNN transcript, click this.) You'll see Bakari Sellers, a good decent person, interrupt her as he offers one of the irrelevant dodges which have become part of our Blue American array of talking points.   

Oops! We cited something Sunshine said, but also an interruption by Sellers, a good decent smart experienced person.  

We'll suggest that other decent people should let people like Sunshine talk. Here's what various people said on that evening's CNN NewsNight program: 

SUNSHINE (8/27/26): Jocelyn Nungaray was 12 years old.

ABBY PHILLIP: Okay

SUNSHINE: She was strangled under a bridge. And the two guys that did it didn't have any previous deportation

SELLERS: More heterosexual Christian white men kill anybody than illegal immigrants.

SUNSHINE: Every person who is staying here who has not committed an additional crime is a threat and has to go home. And we don't talk about that, and I'm glad to.

PHILLIP: Every person who is killed in this country is a tragedy. Jocelyn Nungaray's death is a terrible tragedy, and those people who responsible for it should 100 percent be held responsible for those crimes.

SUNSHINE: They shouldn't have been here to begin with. 

All three are good, decent people. Today, we speak in praise of Caroline Sunshine. 

Who was Jocelyn Nungaray? Well known to Reds, disappeared for us Blues, we're sorry to say that her sacred story goes a great deal like this

Killing of Jocelyn Nungaray   

On June 16, 2024, at 10 pm, Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old American girl, was sexually assaulted and killed in North Houston, Texas, United States. The case attracted national attention, as two illegal immigrants from Venezuela were charged with her murder. Authorities found her body the next morning in a creek in North Houston and determined she had been raped and murdered by strangulation. Texas prosecutors have indicted the suspects on charges of capital murder, kidnapping, and aggravated sexual assault.   

Jocelyn Lisel Nungaray was born on December 27, 2011, as the older of two children. She was in sixth grade at Gordon-Reed Elementary School until March 2024, when she moved away to North Houston with her single mother and younger brother.  

The story continues from there. Good God, what a shameand on Bloomsday, no less! As Greta Conroy tells her husband in Joyce's famous story, The Dead:   

“I can see him so plainly,” she said after a moment. “Such eyes as he had: big, dark eyes! And such an expression in them—an expression!”

[...]

 “He died when he was only seventeen. Isn’t it a terrible thing to die so young as that?”

Except this is much worse than that.   

Bakari Sellers, a good decent person, interrupted with a standard bit of misdirection. It was a standard misdirection scripted by of our own Blue American tribe. 

Did he realize that it was a misdirection? We don't know. Do you?   

Sunshine had it right that night. Sometimes, our side is the one at fault.


RAGE AND WAR: Goldberg imagines a new civil war!

MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2026

Rage of Laura Loomer: Has the United States (E pluribus unum) somehow become two different nations, one Red and the other one Blue?

Does an incipient state of war obtain? One week ago, in Sunday Opinion, Michelle Goldberg, who's very sharp, was observed floating that thought.

We've posted this excerpt from her column before. We'll be working from this excerpt all week:

Why Do We Keep Imagining a New Civil War?

[...]

For at least the last decade, a florid, aggressive contempt has been a constant in our politics. Donald Trump, after all, doesn’t just shower liberal cities and states with insults (and, in a demented A.I. video he posted, with excrement). His presidency has been devoted to punishing the places that didn’t vote for him, including by withholding health care and disaster funding. One of the things his voters have long loved about him is the humiliation and despair he causes their fellow citizens.

Many of those Trump partisans are still smarting over Hillary Clinton calling some of them “deplorables.” For decades they’ve been seething at the disrespect they feel emanating from America’s cultural capitals. It seems obvious to me that blue America is more abused than abuser, but that doesn’t really matter; the impossibility of coming to any agreement about the commensurability of our grievances just underlines the toxicity of the relationship.  

She refers in that passage to Blue America, and by implication to Red. In her headline, she reports a type of puzzling dream:

We keep imagining a new civil war, she says.

"A florid, aggressive contempt has been a constant in our politics," Goldberg accurately says in the text of her column. She says she's describing the politics of "at least the last decade," leaving open the possibility that this state of contemptRed for Blue and Blue for Reddates even farther back.

Instantly. she tracks the phenomenon to President Trump's outlandish, never-ending, endless stream of insults. She says it seems obvious to her that "blue America is more abused than abuser" at the present time. 

We agree with that at the present time. If we take our chronology farther backto Thoreau's dismissive remarks about "the mass of men;" to Pete Seeger's astoundingly insulting comments about the people who lived in the "Little Boxes" of Daly City, including our own Aunt Connie and our younger cousin Diane:

If we take our chronology back that far, we aren't entirely sure that we Blues are more sinned against. More on that question to come.  

Today, the front page of the print edition New York Times may suggest, to Blue America, that we truly ae living in two different nations. 

Over the weekend, the president continued his florid, aggressive wars against lakes and nations and those in the press. But the values of his MAGA America may seem to fully prevail in this front-page report, headline included:  

Deportees Recount Harrowing Journeys to Africa: Shackles, a ‘Freezer’ and Blows

Leonardo Sánchez wailed in pain for hours on the deportation flight from Louisiana to West Africa, he and six other detainees said.

He’d been cuffed around his wrists and ankles. A chain around his waist dug into his grossly protruding abdomen—the result of years-old wounds and surgeries that doctors said left his intestines barely inside his body.

Mr. Sánchez, a 49-year-old Cuban, begged for medical attention from several of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on the aircraft.

“I was in pain, crying like a little kid,” he said. But the agents wouldn’t remove his chains or let him use the toilet, he and other detainees said. He wet himself.    

That's the way the news report starts. Most of the deportees were being sent to Liberia, a nation to which they had no connection. Others were taken on to Equatorial Guinea.

According to the Times report, the paper "interviewed 10 of the deportees on the flight to Liberia, all of whom described...a panicked 14-hour expulsion to Africa, in which agents wrestled and shackled frightened detainees."

 As for Leonardo Sánchez, the report goes on to say this, among other things, about his arrival in Liberia:   

When the flight arrived in Liberia’s capital, Monrovia, Mr. Sánchez, the Cuban national, and three others said they refused to disembark, afraid of being abandoned in an unfamiliar country. They said they were forced onto the tarmac by ICE officers who yanked and twisted their handcuffs, pinned them to the ground and pressed their knees directly onto their necks.

Mr. Sánchez said the federal agents knocked him onto the ground and knelt on his bulging abdomen, leaving him in agony, his pants still damp with urine. Other deportees began shouting, “‘You abuser! If he dies, it’s on you!’” Mr. Sánchez and three other deportees said.

The Department of Homeland Security said that no detainees were refused access to the bathroom, that Mr. Sánchez was reviewed and declared fit to fly by medical staff, that his medical needs were addressed on the flight, and that agents did not kneel or press on his abdomen.  

And so on from there.  As it turns out, Sanchez was placed back on the plane, becoming one of the deportees who went to Equatorial Africa, where he apparently remains today.

In Blue America, many citizens will read that report as proof of the claim that "the cruelty is the point" with many of Red America's current policy approaches. In Red America, this story will seem different, to the extent that the reporting is believed: 

In Red America, the focus will turn to the bizarre (and still unexplained) border policies of the Biden administration. Attention may be drawnas Caroline Sunshine did last week on CNNto the rape and murder of young American women by unauthorized immigrants who crossed the unattended southern border during the Biden years.   

To see Sunshine's presentation, just click here. (For the CNN transcript, click this.) You'll see Bakari Sellers, a good decent person, interrupt her as he offers one of the irrelevant dodges which are a standard part of our own Blue American array of deceptive talking points.   

The president is a constant source of insult and rage. So are other Red American figures, including TV's Greg Gutfeld, with his endless insulting behavior directed at liberal women, with respect to which no one within our Blue American elites has been willing to complain.

The rage of Achilles (and the countervailing rage of Agamemnon) begins the story which sits at the dawn of European literature. Today, the rage of Trump, and astonishing the rage of Steven Cheung, virtually define the shape of our rapidly disintegrating post-American culture.   

The rage of the Reds is quite astounding, and it's quite widespread. Just last Friday, the astoundingly furious Laura Loomer referred to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as one of a group of women who "are all ghetto, entitled, race-obsessed, destructive black B*TCHES who are completely unfit for the power they hold.” 

(For the record, Loomer spelled the B-word outin all caps, of course.) 

That's right! Loomer referred to Justice Brown Jackson (along with the others) as "a ghetto, race-obsessed black B*TCH." (To see Loomer's tweet, click here.) This red rage is so ubiquitous at this point that this astonishing remark has produced virtually zero comment.   

Where has this red rage come from? What explains the extent of the fury? 

In her presentation on CNN, Sunshine displayed the ability to voice a punishing complaint while staying within the bounds of traditional public civility. The Trumps and the Cheungs and the Gutfelds oh my have long since stopped pretending that they want to behave like that.

Goldberg's headline floats the possibility of some sort of new civil war. We think of Wallace Stevens' female protagonist who, on a famous Sunday morningin a completely different context"dreams a little, and feels the dark encroachment of that old catastrophe."  

Stevens' protagonist feels the onset of a disaster. Goldberg, who is very sharp, is wondering why we seem to be imagining another civil war.   

Tomorrow: Rage of Cheung


SATURDAY: What it means to have a good heart!

SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 2026

Lake Ontario Days: Inevitably, the week's events occasioned memories of our own Lake Ontario Days. 

We refer to our days, basically in the 1990s, in the comedy room at the Lake Ontario Playhouse, way up there in unobtrusive Sackets Harbor, New York.

Sackets Harbor (1990 population: 1,313) may be the smallest locale ever to have had a weekend comedy room. Its spirit seemed to come from its cheerful young founder, NAME WITHHELD. 

The room has closed, but a commenter at TripAdvisor once started her comment like this:

I love this place
Not only is it a comedy club but it has an amazing little bar...

"I love this place," the lady said. "It has an amazing bar."

Inexplicably, it surely did! In that inexplicably unusual waiting room / bar, we heard a story once, from a young patron, which remains in our head as the definition of what it means to have an extremely kind heart. 

Also, we first listened to the lyrics of "In My Life" on the jukebox there. We can't remember why, but we'd play it after every show, even after the bad ones.

It's a remarkably simple song. Two (2) verses only, producing this pair of conclusions:  

In my life I've loved them all.
In my life I love you more... 
 

The lyrics were by John Lennon. Based on reported chronology, the song couldn't have been about Yoko Ono.   

Was the song about any actual person? We have no way of knowing, but an unusual spirit did seem to obtain inside that "amazing little bar."

The lake was right down the street. Inside the room, we heard someone describe an ambition which has stuck in our head, decades later, as the essence of a very good, decent kind heart.   

Then again, also this: This report in today's New York Times has several direct references to "mental illness" and to the unfortunate state of being "mentally ill," if only in one particular way. 

It seems to us that, as a nation, we'd gain from learning more about the nature of mental illness. For today, we'll stick to the eternal need for us the people to emulate those who arrived on the planet in possession of decent kind hearts.


REFUSALS: President obliterates the name of a lake!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2026

"Clinically insane," anchor says: Is it possible that the sitting president is "clinically insane?" 

The question arose last evening on MS NOW's The Last Word. After his opening monologue, Lawrence O'Donnell began to introduce his first guest. 

For the record, we admire the fact that O'Donnell caresthat he seems take these things personally. 

O'Donnell's 17-minute monologue had concerned the all new-and-improved "Lake America." As he introduced his initial guest, here's part of what he said

O'DONNELL (8/27/26): Leading off our discussion tonight is Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He's the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.   

Congressman Rankin, thank you very much for joining us tonight. 

We were going to run a little clip of video...of Donald Trump saying he might rename the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, thereby giving historians all the more they might need to declare him clinically insane, as I'm sure history will. 

Let's go [instead] to the real breaking news of the night, which is the federal judge in Boston

At this point, Raskin interrupted with a joke. Let's consider what O'Donnell had said.  

O'Donnell's monologue had concerned the latest foolishness from the presidenthis obliteration of The Lake Formerly Known as Ontario, with a (joking?) threat to rename two oceans thrown in.   

O'Donnell had referred to the president's "madness" throughout his monologue. Now he said he felt sure that that historians will say that the president was "clinically insane" during his time in the White House.  

We respect O'Donnell for the disgust he routinely directs at the president. He isn't going through the motions. It's plain that he actually cares about the danger we seem to be in.

That said, in what sense can a person say that the president is "clinically insane?"  Ironically, because "insanity" and "insane" aren't clinical / medical terms, the dramatic assessment, "clinically insane," isn't a clinical term either!  

"Clinically insane" isn't a clinical term! Instead, it serves as a lusty insult, but the term doesn't tell us much. Had he been a bit less angry, O'Donnell might have settled for some such assessment as this:  

 In the future, historians will likely agree that the sitting president was [some version of] "mentally ill" during his term in office. 

Or was O'Donnell thinking of some form of cognitive decline, resulting in a serious cognitive shortfall?  Could that really be what he meant?

He could be thinking of either or both! With apologies for the constant repetition, here's how one medically trained observer put it earlier this year:   

UNNAMED CNN ANCHOR (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a decline?

MEDICALLY TRAINED OBSERVER: I do, but I think it's important to remember that Donald has never been fit in any capacity. Obviously, what we're dealing with now are age-related cognitive declines. We're dealing with physical issues that the White House tries to cover over.

But this is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen, especially given the pressure he's under and given the cognitive and physical declines.     

The unnamed observer alleged "obvious cognitive declines," but she also referred to "serious psychiatric disorders." Which was O'Donnell thinking about when he posited a future assessment of "clinical insanity?"   

Viewers of The Last Word weren't given the slightest idea. In his anger, we doubt that O'Donnell had given this matter much thought.  

Full disclosure:

Our American journalism is very primitive, even when performed by our Harvard grads. Within our current culture, it's hard for us modern Americans to understand that fact.  

O'Donnell was angry about Trump's latest nonsense, as he frequently is. But in his anger, he behaved in the way Professor Brabender once insightfully described:   

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

Would it make any difference if O'Donnell had interviewed a medical specialist instead of the ubiquitous Raskin? If he had managed to formulate searching questions for that medical specialist, who would of course have to be careful to ignore his or her political inclinations?  

Would it be helpful to take that route in future interviews? For example, to interview the unnamed observer who appeared on CNN, asking her to detail the problems as she perceives them?  

In a best-seller she published in 2020, that observer said the sitting president had suffered the misfortune of being born to a father who was a "sociopath." In passing, she said that children of "sociopaths" are more likely to be "sociopaths" themselves.   

Would it be instructive for the public to see Lawrence O'Donnell, or someone else, interview that unnamed author about such claims or such facts? Of one thing you can be fully certainno one is going to do that! That observer made the claims we've reposted on CNN and was never seen there again.

"After that, we start to hit?" We'll close today with thoughts about a pair of famous, highly regarded persons. We'll let Dolly Parton go first:   

I will not abandon one person, Dolly Parton is said to have said. Had she been forced to discuss the recent conduct of President Trump, what might she have said?   

The second famous person is a famous fictional person. As we noted the other day, when the Brando character begins to inquire about her valueswhen he possibly begins to challenge her sinceritythis is what she says:   

TERRY MALLOY: The way those sisters used to whack me, I don't know what. They thought they were gonna beat an education into me, but I foxed 'em.   

EDIE DOYLE: Maybe they just didn't know how to handle you.   

TERRY: How would you have done it?   

EDIE: With a little more patience? And kindness? 

The Brando character laughs it off. But the moral greatness of On the Waterfront involves the extremely rare undercard, in which the male character sees that "the girl" is a better person than he is and decides that he wants to learn to be more like her.   

We're not suggesting that treating the president with patience or kindness would change whatever is destined to come. But could it help in any possible way if we were willing to pity the child who had the misfortune to be born to the "sociopath" father? The child whose behavior was already so bad by seventh grade that he could no longer continue in his local private school, where his father sat on the board?   

Had his own "sociopathy" already begun to present at that point? Would it be instructive or helpful in any way to ask that author about that point?

It's too late to avoid the danger lodged in our flailing nation's current situation. That said, would it help if, just this once, we refused to use the language of mental illness as a way to issue a stinging insultas a way to "hit?"   

By the way, is a mental illness really an illness? Have you ever seen a journalist ask?