WEDNESDAY: Jargon is as jargon does!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2025

Why we can't have nice things: Greedily, we fell upon a book review in today's New York Times. The principal headline on the piece caught our eye:

NONFICTION
A Philosopher Gives the Old Idea of Universalism a Radical New Spin
Omri Boehm’s new book argues that both the left and the right must abandon divisive identity politics and embrace the transformative power of Enlightenment ideals.

We're always ready to see what the philosophers would have us do. Boehm's new book may be very good. This is the new book's title:

RADICAL UNIVERSALISM: Beyond Identity

Radical universalism? What in the world is that?

Boehm's new book may be quite good. But based upon the review in the Times, we can't say we're real sure.

For one thing, we were puzzled by the term "universalism," with which we weren't familiar. The term never quite gets explained in the review. Instead, jargon almost seems to be rolling down like the water of a mighty stream:

A Philosopher Gives the Old Idea of Universalism a Radical New Spin

[...]

The Declaration of Independence is one of the texts that Boehm explores in his compact and readable treatise on universalism, an idea that has fallen out of fashion with identitarians on the right and on the left. In contemporary politics, parochialism reigns: “The right fights in terms of traditional values, the left fights in the name of gender and race.“

This initially sounds like the kind of both-sidesism that political centrists find appealing. But Boehm finds fault with centrists, too, who have done their part to hollow out the idea of universalism. They have been so enthralled by the concept of “rights” that they have neglected the concept of “duty.” Universalism, properly understood, doesn’t just rest on some minimal understanding of the “right” to act in your own “interest.” In fact, he argues, universalism entails a duty that sometimes requires people to act against their interests. 

[...]

Before I started reading this book, the title “Radical Universalism” struck me as an oxymoron. I associated the word “universalism” with an inclination toward complacency—an approach that deployed the tepid vocabulary of reform and individual rights to preserve the status quo.

Universalism has allegedly fallen out of favor with the identitarians. Meanwhile, the reviewer does seem to have a general idea of what "universalism" is. But she never defines the term, and the leading authority on the concept explains it in various ways.

"This is why we can't have nice things," Paula Poundstone once said. In the final lyric of his Graceland album, Paul Simon took an even gloomier tack:

"That's why we must learn to live alone," he somewhat gloomily said.

You'll forgive us if we postpone our current series, SQUALOR RED, SQUALOR BLUE. We don't know what made us think that we'd want to proceed on this New Year's Eve day, especially after we journeyed to our mechanic's shop to retrieve what's left of our car.

On the brighter side, we journeyed there on the Purple Route of the Charm City Circulator. Free buses already exist in American cities! (You may have heard it here first.)

We expect to resume on Friday morning. With respect to those widely maligned free buses:

Today, in a nod to an incoming mayor, we successfully journeyed on one. We rolled to the north, free of charge, then skillfully drove home from there!

TUESDAY: What sacred Melville did for whales...

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2025

...we'll do for the president's groaners: Our recent reference to sacred Melville pleased a certain Tonight show comedian of the Leno era. With that fact in mind:

In this morning's report, we started to create a taxonomy of ridiculous public misstatements by the sitting president. As the leading authority on the topic reminds us, sacred Melville also labored in this general field:

Cetology of Moby-Dick

The cetology in Herman Melville's 1851 novel, Moby-Dick, is a running theme that appears most importantly in Ishmael's zoological classification of whales in Chapter 32, "Cetology." The purpose of that chapter, the narrator says, is "to attend to a matter almost indispensable to a thorough appreciative understanding of the more special leviathanic revelations and allusions of all sorts which are to follow." Further descriptions of whales and their anatomy occur in seventeen other chapters, including "The Sperm Whale's Head—Contrasted View" (Chapter 74) and "The Right Whale's Head—Contrasted View" (Chapter 75).

Although writing a work of fiction, Melville included extensive material that presents the properties of whales in a seemingly scientific form. Many of the observations are taken from Melville's reading in whaling sources in addition to his own experiences in whaling in the 1840s. They include descriptions of a range of species in the infraorder of Cetacea. The detailed descriptions are a digression from the storyline, but critics argue that their objectivity and encyclopedic form balance the spiritual elements of the novel and ground its cosmic speculations. Although Melville "keenly parodies nonsense statistics, rigid hierarchies, and the arbitrarily definitive taxonomies characteristic of antebellum natural science," Melville also "showed the elasticity of cataloguing: how it could be used as a literary device, stylistic trait, and even function as an argument . . . the list is offered as vehicle of thought and argumentation, and for its ability to plainly display information in a systematic and exhaustive manner."

And so on from there. But let the word go forth to the nations:

If Melville "keenly parodied nonsense statistics, rigid hierarchies, and the arbitrarily definitive taxonomies characteristic of [his era's] natural science," he might have found himself hot to trot with respect to the dying national discourse of the present day.

He offered taxonomies of the whale. This morning, we started to compile a taxonomy of the leviathanic public misstatements made by the sitting president. 

We called attention to three such monsters from the shallows and the sandbars. Let us start to count the ways:

Varieties of clownish misstatement by the sitting president:

Statements or claims which are "glaringly false"
In this morning's report, we quoted an obvious example of this type of howler. The statement in question was quoted by the New York Times, then dismissed as "glaringly false."

Go ahead! Go back and check it out.

Statements or claims which are unsupported by any attempt at evidence
In groaners of this familiar type, the sitting president makes a poisonous claim which could be true, at least in theory, while offering no evidence in support of his poisonous statement. We offered an ongoing example is this morning's report. 

Many of the sitting president's most frequently recited groaners are memorized, shopworn claims of this maddening type.

Statements or claims which are so imprecise that it's unclear what's being alleged
"The Russia, Russia, Russia hoax was a terrible made-up fictional thing," the sitting president recently said. But then, when has he ever gargled or even brushed his teeth without emitting this shopworn cri de coeur.

This is a favorite memorized chestnut among all those who perform on Fox News Channel programs. But what exactly is being denounced as "a hoax?" 

The president, and the performers on Fox, never quite remember to say. It sounds like they are making a claim, but the claim is really a pseudo-claim. No one knows what the president means, most likely including him.

Our taxonomy of groaning misstatements will start with those varieties. Misstatements aren't all made alike, although they're all equally harmful.

We leave you today with a question:

Fourteen years into this mess, why haven't you seen any professors or journalists creating a taxonomy of the various ways this man misleads the public? 

On this campus, we've suggested a possible reason for the president's endless misstatements. We ask this about those other parties:

What's supposed to be wrong with them?

THE SQUALOR(S): There he keeps going, again and again!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2025

We'd call it Squalor Red: It's one more example of "the problem we all [currently] live with."

We can't find it in today's New York Times. But as reported by Mediaite, there he went again:

Trump Drops All-Time Whopper About Israeli Hostages...

President Donald Trump falsely took credit for all Israeli hostages being released, even though more than 100 were freed during the presidency of Joe Biden.

[...]

“Every hostage, just about, that’s been released was released because of me, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, my whole team, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth,” Trump replied. “They were all released because of us. None were released in the Biden administration. None. They were all released because of us.”

It was an absurdly inaccurate claim. Appearing yesterday with Bibi, he made it two separate times.

Full disclosure! On this campus, we're inclined to think that the president may even believe his various crazy claims.

Presumably, medical specialists could offer some perspective on that possibility. But, for better or worse, major news orgs have agreed that such discussions must never happen.

We've turned to Mediaite for that absurdly inaccurate claim. In fairness to the New York Times, they were at least reporting another such misstatement, right there on the front page of today's print editions:

Families of Murder Victims in Washington Say Trump Is Ignoring Them

[...]

“We haven’t had a murder in six months,” Mr. Trump said of Washington.

It was the kind of glaringly false claim about crime in the capital that Mr. Trump has made repeatedly since August, when he deployed the National Guard and took federal control of the police force...D.C. police have recorded 127 murders through Dec. 26, including 28 since Mr. Trump announced his federal takeover.

The president's claim is "glaringly false"—but he's been "repeatedly" making it.

We've started with a pair of claims which are crazily inaccurate. In this morning's print editions, the Times is also reporting a different kind of presidential misstatement:

Russia Threatens to Toughen Its Stance on Ending the War in Ukraine

With talks on ending the Ukraine war making little progress on the toughest issues, Russia issued a dramatic threat on Monday to harden its stance, linking the potential change to what the Kremlin called a failed Ukrainian drone attack overnight targeting a rural residence of President Vladimir V. Putin.

Ukraine immediately denied any such attack...

[...]

Mr. Trump said that he heard about the alleged attack from Mr. Putin himself during a previously scheduled phone call early Monday to discuss the peace talks. “I was very angry about it,” he told reporters at Mar-a-Lago, though he conceded that he had no independent confirmation that it had occurred.

Can we talk? Aside from what Putin had said, he didn't even claim to know some such (alleged) attack had actually occurred! But so what? In the absence of any evidence—in the absence of anything resembling knowledge--the president went on and on, seeming to assume that Putin's statement was true.

In short, there are various kinds of public misstatements. There are claims which are plainly false, but there are also claims for which there seems to be no evidence.

Under current arrangements, these claims emerge from the sitting president on a regular basis—but does any of this really make any difference? 

Uh-oh! On page A12 of this morning's Times, this profoundly unfortunate news report suggests that the answer is yes:

Suspect Confessed to Planting Pipe Bombs Near the Capitol Before Jan. 6

The Virginia man arrested this month on charges of placing two pipe bombs in Washington on the night before a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has given a detailed confession, according to court papers released on Sunday night.

In the public first hint at a motive in the case, the documents said that the man, Brian J. Cole Jr., felt he needed to “speak up” after he began to suspect that the 2020 election, in which President Trump was defeated, had been “tampered with.”

Fortunately, those pipe bombs failed to detonate. But according to his confession, Cole decided to plant the bombs because he had come to believe that the 2020 election had been "tampered with"—in more familiar parlance, had been stolen.

Five years later, the sitting president was still making that inflammatory claim when he held a press event this Sunday, right there at Mar-a-Lago. 

He appeared there with President Zelensky. Inevitably, he was soon saying this:

TRUMP (12/28/25): I've said, and nobody has disputed it, that if the election weren't rigged and stolen, 2020, you wouldn't have had this war. It would have never happened. And it didn't happen for four years. Never was even thought to happen.

And I spoke with President Putin. I got along with him very well despite the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, which was a total hoax. He used to say, "What is going on over there?" But it was a total hoax, as he knew and as I knew. 

[...]

Don't forget, we went through the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax together. And he'd call me, I'd call him. I said, can you believe the stuff that they're making up? And it turned out we were right. They made it all up...

But the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, which was a terrible made-up fictional thing by Crooked Hillary and by Adam Shifty Schiff and bad people, sick people, they made it up. It was all a made-up hoax. 

For starters, the election "was rigged and stolen!" There he went again!

This sitting president has now had more than five years to present a white paper in which he could attempt to justify that inflammatory statement. No such presentation has been made. 

He just keeps repeating the statement. People like Cole believe what he says and may even decide to react.

Such people may also believe the other ludicrous claims the president made in that same press event. That includes the endless (and endlessly vague) assertion about "the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax," which was "a total hoax," the sitting president once again said.

What exactly was "the Russia hoax?" As far as we know, the president has never tried to say. He just keeps making his fuzzy claim concerning that undefined "hoax."

That said, the wonderfully useful, imprecise claim gets repeated all day and all night by the messenger children at the Fox News Channel. All across the fruited plain, people like Cole hear the vague claim, and they may not realize that the claim is so poorly defined as to be basically meaningless.

Also, "Russia wants Ukraine to succeed!" 

Yes, he actually said it! But so it goes, day after day, as we the people deal with the pernicious effects of "the problem we all currently live with."

Let us count the ways:

Some of his statements are "glaringly false." But no matter how many times this gets pointed out, he just continues to make them.

Some of his bogus statements could be true, at least in theory—but he makes no attempt to offer evidence in support of his inflammatory claims. Also, some of his claims are so vague, so poorly defined, that no one can really say what they actually mean.

This situation has continued, day after day, dating back to the four or five years when he kept appearing on The Fox News Channel to claim that Barack Obama, who was then the sitting president, had been born in Kenya. His willing enabler during those years was Greta Van Susteren, who's now employed as a news anchor by Newsmax TV. 

More on that matter will follow. For today, we call your attention to this:

Dating back to 2011, our nation has suffered under the reign of misstatement authored by the sitting president. We would describe this reign of misstatement as the principal component of (moral and intellectual) "Squalor Red."

The president's remarkable conduct qualifies as Squalor Red. As we noted yesterday, it took a remarkable squalid form on August 10, 2019—on the day when Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his prison cell.

The squalor was general over the next several days as the president messaged his gullible followers concerning Epstein's death. As you may recall, here are two of the things this (colloquial) madman did:

Trump retweets conspiracy theory tying the Clintons to Epstein’s death

President Trump used his Twitter account Saturday to spread a baseless conspiracy theory about the death of Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy and politically connected financier who had been facing multiple charges of sex trafficking involving underage girls.

Trump’s Justice Department announced that Epstein, who was being held in a federal corrections facility, died by “apparent suicide.”

But Trump appeared to disregard his administration’s statement, instead retweeting a message from conservative actor and comedian Terrence K. Williams, who suggested that Epstein’s death might be tied to former president Bill Clinton...

The claim is completely unsubstantiated...

On the day that Epstein died, that's the way the squalor started. Three days later, this:

Trump defends sharing Clinton-Epstein conspiracy theory

President Donald Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to share a tweet suggesting Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in financier Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide, and stoked speculation about the former president’s relationship with the deceased convicted sex offender.

“The retweet—which is what it was, just a retweet—was from somebody that’s a very respected conservative pundit, so I think that was fine,” Trump told reporters, referring to a conspiratorial message by comedian and commentator Terrence K. Williams, which he re-posted Saturday.

Trump, who has been criticized for promulgating the unfounded theory that the Clintons had a hand in Epstein’s death, said on Tuesday that he had “no idea” whether they played a role in the high-profile prisoner’s demise.

On that same August 10, he messaged his poisonous claim about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Three days later, he acknowledged that he "had no idea" if the "theory" he messaged was true.

Even today, the creepy host of the Fox News Channel's Gutfeld! program repeatedly reinforces the astonishing claim that Hillary Clinton is a person who murders her opponents. But even back in August 2019, the sitting president was messaging a second accusation about Bill Clinton—an accusation based on bungled data, an accusation which is almost certainly false.

He returned to that poisonous messaging this summer, then again in recent weeks. The hacks who amplify his disorder were happy to repeat his various claims on the Fox News Channel. This is the problem we've all been living with over the past fifteen years.

We would regard this as Squalor Red. No large modern nation can expect to function under such a squalid regime.

We regard that as Squalor Red, but what in the world is Squalor Blue? We'll tell you that in our first report of the new year. 

Tomorrow, we'll review the other claim being peddled about concerning President Clinton.

Once again, a bit of disclosure:

In our view, he may even believe the various things he says. In our view, the refusal to come to terms with that possibility is part of Squalor Blue.

Tomorrow: Facts and fact checks are utterly useless in the face of these Squalor(s).

MONDAY: What did Candidate Trump really say?

MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2025

Endless dispute resolved: We didn't see today's exchange ourselves. But over at Mediaite, Isaac Schorr has captured the latest exchange in an ongoing dispute about last year's White House campaign.

The endless dispute to which we refer goes like this:

Last year, did Candidate Trump say he would execute "mass deportations" when he returned to the White House? Or did he actually say that he was only going to deport "the worst of the worst?"

For starters, let us say this:

It seems to us that Schorr begins today's report by mischaracterizing something Karen Bass said to Wolf Blitzer on last Friday's Situation Room. In fairness to Schorr, that's almost inevitable when Tomi Lahren is hosting a Fox News Channel show, the messaging service she provided on today's Outnumbered program.

Schorr provides videotape from today's Outnumbered. If you watch that videotape, you'll see Lahren executing her most prominent "journalistic" skill. You'll see her offering a jaundiced "translation" of an extremely short remark by Mayor Bass—a short remark from which a much wider context has been completely disappeared.

Along with her mastery of sarcasm and snark, such "translations" constitute Lahren's number one skill. Soon, though, the dispute about last year's election broke out between Marie Harf, a former Obama/Biden official, and Kaylee McGhee White, a thoroughly reliable pro-MAGA Fox News contributor.

Schorr transcribes what the combatants said. Here's part of his transcription:

HARF (12/29/25): I remember before the election when everyone said, "He’s going to go after the worst of the worst. Murderers, rapists." That’s not what’s happening.

They’re going into a lot of primarily Hispanic communities, rounding up people, elderly people, young kids who’ve been here, you know, elderly people who’ve been here for decades, and Hispanic supporters of Trump are like, "Wait a second, this isn’t what we bargained for." ... I’m looking to Hispanic voters who supported Trump who say, "Wait a second, this isn’t what we were told ICE was going to do." And they’re now having some buyer’s remorse. I think that’s interesting.

WHITE: Which part of "Mass Deportations Now" were Hispanic voters not aware of when they voted for Donald Trump? He was pretty explicit on the campaign trail.

HARF: He did say though, Kaylee, and he did say, "We’re going to focus on the worst of the worst. Murderers, rapists, people charged with crimes—"

WHITE: Which is what he’s doing, but you want to keep them here too.

[...] 

They’re here illegally, they’re still criminals.

HARF: That’s not murderers, rapists—that’s not what he said!

For the record, many people who are being deported are not "here illegally." (Many others are.) But let's leave that state of affairs for another day. 

For today, this basic dispute goes on and on, with no end in sight. We're pleased to make the following announcement: 

In the current case, it's possible that Harf and White were each telling the truth! 

We think we can settle this matter right here! Assiduous research demonstrates this:

During the last campaign, the candidate promised "Mass deportation" on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, he thoughtfully said that he would target only "the worst of the worst."

For extra credit only: To evaluate what Mayor Bass said, you'd have to consider a lengthy CNN news report on which she'd been asked to comment.

To peruse the relevant CNN transcript from last Friday's Situation Room, first you have to click here, then you have to click this. On today's Outnumbered program, Lahren played tape of a tiny part of what Bass said, shorn of any context.

Lahren then provided her "translation" of what Bass had said. This is a standard part of the endless clowning performed on Fox News Channel programs. 

Videotape of Lahren's "translation" is included as part of the Mediaite report.

THE SQUALOR(S): Squalor Red and Squalor Blue!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2025

Our nation's dueling squalors: Jeffrey Epstein died in prison, right there in New York City. He was found dead in his prison cell on Saturday, August 10, 2019.

Given the squalor of the time, what happened next was inevitable. In fact, it happened before the day was through. Inevitably, this is what came next:

The sitting president, Donald J. Trump, "used his Twitter account to spread a baseless conspiracy theory" about Epstein's death. Or at least, so said the Washington Post in an August 11 news report.

Instantly, the sitting president had chosen to spread a baseless "conspiracy theory!" According to that poisonous "theory," former president Clinton had somehow caused, or had somehow been involved in, Jeffrey Epstein's death.

Inevitably, that's what the sitting president had decided to suggest. That was the squalid behavior he instantly chose to engage in.

As usual, President Trump was drenched in moral and intellectual squalor as he performed this familiar task. As usual, one of his aides slithered out, working to justify his morally squalid behavior, even as she worked to spread another claim about former president Clinton, a claim which was plainly false.

In the passage we've posted above, we've quoted from that August 11 news report in the Washington Post. Headline included, here's the start of that report:

Trump retweets conspiracy theory tying the Clintons to Epstein’s death

President Trump used his Twitter account Saturday to spread a baseless conspiracy theory about the death of Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy and politically connected financier who had been facing multiple charges of sex trafficking involving underage girls.

Trump’s Justice Department announced that Epstein, who was being held in a federal corrections facility, died by “apparent suicide.”

But Trump appeared to disregard his administration’s statement, instead retweeting a message from conservative actor and comedian Terrence K. Williams, who suggested that Epstein’s death might be tied to former president Bill Clinton...

The claim is completely unsubstantiated, and federal officials say Epstein was not on suicide watch at the time of his death.

So began the Post's report about the sitting president's conduct. Later, the report described what Kellyanne Fitzpatrick had said about the president's conduct in an appearance on the Fox News Channel.

For the record, the headline in the Post report refers to "the Clintons" (plural), a reference which went unexplained in the body of the report. Perhaps for sound journalistic reasons, the Post's report never quoted the baseless claim the president chose to retweet. 

In its own new report, the New York Times was perhaps a bit less circumspect. Headline included, the August 11 report in the Times started off like this:

Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons

President Trump used Twitter on Saturday to promote unfounded conspiracy theories about how Jeffrey Epstein, the financier accused of sex trafficking, died in a federal jail, even as the administration faced questions about why Mr. Epstein had not been more closely monitored.

For years Mr. Trump has brashly—and baselessly—promoted suspicion as fact and peddled secret plots by powerful interests as a way to broadcast his own version of reality. Those include the lie that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and that millions of votes were illegally cast for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Hours after Mr. Epstein was found to have hanged himself in his Manhattan jail cell, Mr. Trump retweeted a post from the comedian Terrence Williams linking the Clintons to the death. Mr. Epstein “had information on Bill Clinton & now he’s dead,” wrote Mr. Williams, a Trump supporter. In an accompanying two-minute video, Mr. Williams noted that “for some odd reason, people that have information on the Clintons end up dead.”

There is no evidence to substantiate the claim, which derives from groundless speculation on the far right, dating to Mr. Clinton’s early days as president, that multiple deaths can be traced to the Clintons and explained by their supposed efforts to cover up wrongdoing.

So began the New York Times' report. In short: a flyweight comedian / blogger had offered a baseless (and poisonous) speculation about Epstein's death. The sitting president, Donald J. Trump, had rushed to move the morally / intellectually squalid messaging along.

Now for a bit of perspective:

As the New York Times' report correctly noted, President Trump had been engaged in this sort of conduct "for years" as of August 2019. His repeated baseless claims about President Obama's birth had begun in 2011. Through repeated appearances on the Fox News Channel over the course of four or five years, those absurdly disingenuous claims had been peddled to Red America over that period.

Now it was 2019,  and the president was peddling this claim. Soon thereafter, he was asked to explain or justify what he had done. On August 13, Politico reported what he said:

Trump defends sharing Clinton-Epstein conspiracy theory

President Donald Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to share a tweet suggesting Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in financier Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide, and stoked speculation about the former president’s relationship with the deceased convicted sex offender.

“The retweet—which is what it was, just a retweet—was from somebody that’s a very respected conservative pundit, so I think that was fine,” Trump told reporters, referring to a conspiratorial message by comedian and commentator Terrence K. Williams, which he re-posted Saturday.

Trump, who has been criticized for promulgating the unfounded theory that the Clintons had a hand in Epstein’s death, said on Tuesday that he had “no idea” whether they played a role in the high-profile prisoner’s demise, and accused former President Bill Clinton of lying about the extent of his air travel on Epstein’s planes.

It was just a retweet, the president said. What could be wrong with that?

He said that he had "no idea" if the insinuation in question was accurate! He had simply decided to retweet the flyweight comedian's poisonous tweet:

So what was the big freaking deal?

As noted, this squalid behavior by this president occurred in August 2019. The final part of the excerpt from the Times report explains why we're discussing it today.

Even then, the Times reported, the sitting president had been "accusing former President Bill Clinton of lying about the extent of his air travel on Epstein’s planes." In the endless hurly-burly which passes for the American discourse, this squalid behavior by President Trump re-emerged with a vengeance this past summer, but then again in the past few weeks.

The moral squalor of this president's conduct would seem to speak for itself. For the purposes of this week's reports, we'll refer to that as Squalor Red.

Unfortunately, Squalor Red has been enabled by Squalor Blue over a period of at least fifteen years. Sadly, the New York Times is deeply committed to that second type of squalid behavior.

A nation is sinking beneath the seas of these dueling acts of squalor. President Trump in deeply sunk in Squalor Red—but what the heck is Squalor Blue, and will it ever end?

Tomorrow: The ubiquity of the whale

Important fuller disclosure: Neither one of these Squalors is ever going to change. This week's reports are being offered for informational purposes only.