SATURDAY: Musk seems to be an obvious nut!

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2025

We lack a way to discuss it: It's a famous formulation from a Woody Guthrie anthem.

The famous song is called Pretty Boy Floyd. The passage goes like this:

Pretty Boy Floyd

[...]

As through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men.
Some rob you with a six-gun,
Some with a fountain pen
.

Set aside Guthrie's apparent beliefs about Charles Arthur Floyd, a bank robber. The highlighted lyrics capture the different ways in which human conquest—overthrow—has been accomplished down through the years.

The overthrow of sacred Troy was a conquest of the Bronze Age. The overthrow was accomplished with the weapons of that era. 

As we've noted many times, Professor Knox described that conquest—that "night assault"—way back in 1990. We've posted the passage many times. Today, we post it again:

Professor Knox: Introduction to the Iliad, Robert Fagles translation

 [...]

The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector's baby son thrown from the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery—all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history, immortalized in lyric poetry, in tragedy, on temple pediments and painted vases, to reinforce the stern lesson of Homer's presentation of the war: that no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force.

There were no guns, but there were swords and there were spears and there was also fire. There was sexual assault and sexual slavery. There were babies thrown to their deaths.

The night assault which occasioned the death of sacred Troy down was accomplished by means of those Late Bronze Age technologies. Today, an overthrow of the Information Age is underway. 

It involves the manifest craziness of a manifest public nutcase. Something is baldly wrong with Elon Musk, but the American discourse largely lacks an established way to discuss or describe this problem.

Is something wrong with Elon Musk? Plainly, the answer is yes. Is it a moral problem, or could it be a matter of "mental disorder" (more colloquially, a matter of mental illness)?

Is he a liar or is he a nutcase? That's a difficult matter to cipher—but by tradition, our journalism lacks a way to discuss that important question. 

In part for that reason, the current overthrow—this conquest of the Information Age—continues apace, driven by the endless array of crazy statements made by this crazy man. 

He may be more Trump than Donald J. Trump! Over at the Washington Post, Oremus and Harwell struggle to keep up with all the crazy statements—but in truth, it can't be done:

Musk accused Reuters of ‘social deception.’ The deception was his.

The actor and director Ron Howard posted Wednesday on X an article by the news agency Reuters headlined, “Musk’s DOGE cuts based more on political ideology than real cost savings so far.”

An hour later, Elon Musk posted a reply: “I wonder how much money Reuters is getting from the government? Let’s find out.” Before the night’s end, the billionaire leading the Trump administration’s radical cost-cutting campaign was touting what he portrayed as a smoking gun: a screenshot of a U.S. government webpage showing a contract between the Defense Department and Thomson Reuters Special Services for “Active Social Engineering Defense” and “Large Scale Social Deception.”

“Reuters was paid millions of dollars by the US government for ‘large scale social deception,’” Musk proclaimed in an X post that has racked up more than 76,000 shares and 35 million views. “They’re a total scam. Just wow.”

Inevitably, this assessment by Musk turned out to be clownishly wrong.

"The contract was real, but the Orwellian phrase Musk seized on to suggest a shadowy conspiracy wasn’t what it seems."  That's the way Oremus and Hartwell start their attempt to explain what Musk managed—once again—to get clownishly wrong.

That's the way the Post report begins. As they continue, the reporters attempt to correct a wide array of crazy claims which have been driving the current, ongoing conquest of our own sacred Troy.

That said, a problem exists:

By tradition, our journalism lacks a language for describing blinding stupidity. Also, it lacks a language with which to discuss possibilities of mental illness among political figures. 

(By way of contrast, journalists are allowed to speak freely about "mental illness" in discussions of various types of "street crime.")

This lack of language means that our journalism lacks a way to discuss the relentless conduct of Elon Musk. Also, our "highly educated" mainstream journalists aren't always especially sharp as a group, nor do they always distinguish themselves with respect to their moral horizons.

We still owe you a look at what was said on the February 7 Gutfeld! program—more specifically, at what was said by the program's four panelists. The panelists spoke after the program's extremely peculiar host had made a set of remarkable claims about the work of USAID—allegations about the agency's work overseas but also here at home

By the rules of the game, every player was required to agree with every word the program's host had said. Or at least, they were required to find a way to avoid contradicting or questioning the stunning accusations he'd lodged, perhaps by mouthing preapproved talking points on some other preapproved theme.

The Gutfeld! program is a form of Information Age overthrow / conquest. On this prime time "cable news" program, a rotating set of corporate employees take turns undermining the conceptual foundations of the modern American nation.

They do so for better or worse. But they plainly do so.

Tomorrow, we're going to show you the transcript of the crazy things Dagen McDowell said that night, as the palace burned. We'll even direct you to the place where this extremely strange person struggled like a modern Strangelove to keep herself from emitting a furious F-word.

(McDowell never isn't amazingly strange when she appears on this program.)

We're offering this service for the ages—for people "ages and ages hence." If they want to know how our own Troy died, our efforts will be there to serve them.

By the time of that ancient "night assault," it was too late to save sacred Troy. The same may well be true of us today, as our own towering walls—walls of the Information Age—are being overrun by the clownishly ridiculous Musk and by others much like him.

Tradition limits the ways we can fight. Plus, those of us in Blue America have worked hard to earn our way out. In these relentless ways, we Blues have "lost the power to meet [Information Age] force with equal or superior force."

We're being robbed with a fountain pen—rather, by an assortment of crazy claims aimed directly at the heart of our own hapless behaviors.

FRIDAY: "There's a lot of madness in the air!"

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2025

Is something being withheld? "Something we were withholding made us weak?"

Below, you see part of Michelle Goldberg's new column for the New York times.  She claims that Donald J. Trump, and some of those around him, want to bring the whole of academia crashing to the ground.

It almost sounds like the way Samson is said to have pulled the pillars of the temple down. For the record, Samson was once diagnosed, though only in a theoretical way, as suffering from antisocial personality disorder. 

For the BBC's account, just click here.

At any rate, here's part of Goldberg's column, in which she says "madness" seems to be general over this failing nation:

Trump Wants to Destroy All Academia, Not Just the Woke Parts

In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech to the National Conservatism Conference, a gathering of Trumpist thinkers and politicians, titled “The Universities Are the Enemy.” It contained the usual complaints about critical race theory and gender ideology, but it went much further, arguing for a frontal attack on the power and prestige of higher education writ large...

[...]

...The striking thing about Vance’s speech was its deep hostility to the entire academic enterprise, not just the so-called woke parts. He wasn’t talking about making more room for right-wing ideas in universities or even dreaming of taking them over. He wanted to destroy it all.

And now he’s part of a government taking steps to do just that. I’ve written about Donald Trump’s plan to crush the academic left, but it increasingly looks as though he and his allies are targeting academia more broadly, including the hard sciences that have long enjoyed bipartisan support. “I think the extremely strong desire is to just punish universities however possible,” Kevin Carey, the director of the education policy program at New America, a public policy think tank, told me. “It’s not based on any kind of coherent policy agenda. It’s just a desire to inflict pain.”

Goldberg's specific assessments could be right, though of course they could always be wrong. That said, in her assessment, Trump and Vance "want to destroy it all." 

(Carey says there's nothing coherent about it. "It’s just a desire to inflict pain.”)

In Goldberg's view, Trump and Vance have a bad idea. We're asking you to think about the key word she employs later in her column:

...The post-World War II system of government-funded research universities has fueled American scientific and technological dominance, but our continued pre-eminence is in no way assured.

China, after all, continues to invest strongly in its universities. “Part of our decline as a culture and economy would be our disinvestment in higher education,” said Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University. “Maybe we’ll just invest in World Wrestling, but I don’t think that’s going to mean that other countries and other cultures won’t continue to invest in the capacity of their citizens to learn in such a way as to create new modes of living, new modes of fighting disease, new modes of creating companies.” To torch America’s advantage in these realms seems like madness.

But there’s a lot of madness in the air these days. In December, Max Eden of the American Enterprise Institute published an article about how Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment chief executive whom Trump nominated to be secretary of education, could give the “college cartel” the “body slamming they deserve.” ...

And so on from there.

"There’s a lot of madness in the air these days," Goldberg says. At this site we strongly agree. That said, the columnist seems to be speaking colloquially. This is the question we'd ask:

If you see so much colloquial madness all around you, has it ever crossed your mind that you may be looking at some form of clinical "madness?" Might it help us understand what's happening if you simply said so?

"Madness" isn't a clinical term, but neither is "avoidance." Is something being withheld in columns like this? Might it be keeping us weak?

In Frost's poem, something eventually happened. Eventually, it came to this:

...we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender

It was ourselves we were withholding! Could that be what we're doing today, as we refuse to speak about what's sitting right there before us?

(JOURNALISTIC) MADNESS: Commander fingers USAID!

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2025

They tried to rig the election: As of yesterday afternoon, the accusation had spread.

A termite on a "cable news" program advanced the claim last Friday night—and others may have believed it. Yesterday afternoon, as Prime Minister Modi looked on, the following Q-and-A occurred right there in the Oval Office.

For the record, the question seems to have come from a member of the Indian press. For Mediaite's report, and for videotape, you can just click here:

Trump Entertains Insane Question About USAID Rigging the 2020 Election

A fawning “reporter” asked President Donald Trump if the U.S. Agency for International Development helped rig the 2020 election against him.

The bizarre question came during a joint appearance by Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Oval Office on Thursday.

[...]

REPORTER: President Trump, first of all, congratulations for the fantastic 24 days of your presidency. Historic and unprecedented decisions that you’ve made, transformational reforms—

TRUMP: I like her. I like her.

[LAUGHTER]

REPORTER: I’m particularly impressed by the exposé on USAID. And I would like you to share with us if you think USAID had a role in election interference in the U.S. in 2020 and in the elections in 2024.

TRUMP: So, it could’ve had a role. There were a lot of bad things that happened in 2020. I think bad things happened in 2024, but it, was too big. We won by a tremendous margin. And we want every swing state. 

We won the popular vote by millions of votes, so it was too big to rig. But yeah, I think they probably tried.

Back in grade school, "Teacher" would always say that there are no insane questions. There are only insane answers, she would always say.

Yesterday, right in the Oval, the commander offered the latest of his many answers—and some of what he said was actually accurate! For example, he did win the election "by millions of votes." 

(The "millions" in question were two.)

Did that constitute "a tremendous margin?" Nationwide, he won the popular vote by a bit less than 1.5 points. Nationwide, he won slightly less than half the popular vote.

Did that constitute "a tremendous margin?" Let's set such matters aside. The possible craziness entered the scene when the commander made a new claim—when he seemed to say that he thinks that USAID probably tried to rig last November's election.

Question: 

Did anyone ask this thoughtful man to offer evidence in support of this new statement?

Stating the obvious, no one asked for any such evidence, and no one ever will. What's left of our conquered nation's discourse—such as that discourse ever was—no longer even pretends to run on such outmoded fuel.  

At this site, we were struck by the way the commander's claim seemed to echo the peculiar claim made last Friday night on an ersatz "cable news" program.

That program has nothing to do with "news" as that term has long been understood. 

Instead, the program practices a form of "journalistic madness." It does so every night, in prime time, on this conquered nation's most watched "cable news" channel.

For unstated reasons, everyone gives this program a pass, including the gang at Mediaite. Under apparent rules of the game, you can mess with CNN's (embarrassing) 10 p.m. show, but you have to ignore the bizarre behavior seen on the Fox News Channel.

At any rate, the peculiar fellow who hosts the show had authored a somewhat similar claim about USAID:

As we've noted, he had accused USAID of staging "a color revolution" (whatever that might mean). He had seemed to accuse USAID of trying to topple the MAGA revolution, just as it had allegedly worked to topple foreign governments.

Yesterday, the commander took this one step further. He said he thinks that USAID tried to rig last November's election.

His statement was unsupported by evidence. Such are the new rules of the game.

As for the "cable news" host, let's play it again! Once again, here's the heart of what this possible nutcase said:

GUTFELD (2/7/25): DOGE has exposed a pile of programs funded by USAID to foster gender and trans propaganda in foreign countries—countries where such things don't seem to benefit stability. Because nothing will bring a Muslim country together like drag queens reading the Koran to kids.

But that's the point. You have to destroy the world to build a new one where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms. 

[...]

As we learn that USAID was creating instability abroad, we see these same dirty tricks coming home. Because once you find yourself with a populist president who wasn't the elite choice, instability must be created artificially. 

[...]

So imagine if we looked at America as a foreign country when Trump won. USAID did! You had a populist president, not an establishment puppet. What followed? Organized and immediate protests—race gender, climate, the three horsemen of funded, organized dissent. 

It was a color revolution, funded by people who pay taxes. Suddenly, you had trained agitators in the street with fresh signs and robust crowds and fueling the media that pushes incendiary hoaxes.

Add to that a crusade against so-called misinformation to empower censorship. Sound familiar? Sounds like everything USAID did in other countries.

Now maybe we didn't mind USAID before. Sure, they toppled governments overseas, but that wouldn't happen here. Now, by shining a light on what they and our government is doing, we find that they did try to destroy a populist movement for being a challenge to their power.

In Tuesday's report, we posted the full transcript of this fellow's "monologue." You can watch his full presentation simply by clicking here.

That said, his basic assertion seemed to be fairly clear. He seemed to be saying this:

USAID had already been working to topple governments overseas. But when Donald J. Trump took office in 2017, USAID began working to do the same there here.

"It was a color revolution," the fellow said, without explaining the meaning of the term. Here at home, USAID tried to destroy the "populist [MAGA] movement for being a challenge to their power." 

So the gentleman said. And why had USAID done such a thing? Simple:

 You have to destroy the world to build a new one where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms.

According to this program's host, that's what USAID was trying to do during Trump's first term. These claims were authored, in prime time, on this defeated nation's most-watched "cable news" channel. 

No evidence was offered in support of these claims. Yesterday, right in the Oval, the restored commander took things one step further:

USAID had "probably" tried to rig last November's election! Or so the commander said he currently thinks.

We've decided to focus today on what the commander said. We'll also focus on what won't be said—on the fact that the commander's latest remarkable statement will pass without comment, except within the Red American realms where such claims are repeated and embellished by an assortment of types.

The commander makes so many unsupported claims that Blue America has largely abandoned the task of taking note of his statements. Judged by traditional norms, this is a form of journalistic surrender. 

It's akin to a form of insanity. It's journalistic madness.

Yesterday, the termite's unsupported claims seemed to resurface in an exchange between an ascot-kissing journalist and the restored commander. 

The termite seemed to have said that USAID had somehow been responsible for the resistance to the commander during his first term in the Oval. Now, the commander was saying that USAID had (probably) tried to rig last year's election.

In fairness, almost everything is possible! On the other hand, most insane claims are untrue. 

By journalistic tradition, a powerful fellow like the commander should be required to offer evidence in support of claims of this type. The same expectation once existed for hosts of TV "news" programs.

Such practices are now dead. As you see these unchallenged claims spread, you're seeing the walls of our own sacred Troy being overrun. 

Very few members of Blue America's elites seem to be able to see what has already taken place: They're unable to see that the "night assault" is underway—that it has (probably) already succeeded.

The termite and the commander are spreading a new Bible all through a conquered land. Last Friday night, four "bobbleheads"—we'll use Thomas Friedman's term—were sitting on the Fox News Channel set, prepared to offer the world a bit of comic relief

They were expected to create the sense that a "discussion" was taking place. Yesterday, we said their names. Today, we'll say them again:

Gutfeld! panelists—Friday, 2/7/25
Todd Piro: Co-host, Fox & Friends First
Dagen McDowell: Co-host, The Big Money Show
Rob Long: Tinseltown writer and producer
Kat Timpf: Regular panelist, Gutfeld! 

These bobbleheads were charged with the task of disguising the night assault.

We're trying to tell you what has occurred within our conquered nation. We'll guess that there may be no turning back, as with the conquest of Troy.

USAID tried to rig the election! So the commander has said!

Tomorrow: Histrionically, McDowell stifles a bomb

Next week: The sociopathy rules

THURSDAY: MSNBC should start transcribing one of its shows!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2025

Transcribe O'Donnell Now! Now that a new person sits at its helm, MSNBC should start transcribing the programs of one of its talkers.

Years back, "The Lock Him Up Network" stopped transcribing its primetime cable news programs. We're still inclined to agree with what we said at the time:

Most likely, there was an obvious reason why they stopped making it easy to see what was being said.

At this point, Rashida Jones is gone; Rebecca Kutler is now in charge. With that in mind, we offer this plea:

Dear Rebecca Kutler, MSNBC:

Would you please start transcribing Lawrence O'Donnell's programs? Also, would you proofread the transcripts, please?

No transcripts of Lawrence, no peace! 

We know of no one who is making better sense concerning the recent astounding behaviors of Messrs. Musk and Trump. We know of no one who is speaking more frankly—though still not frankly enough—concerning the disordered behavior in which Herr Musk is involved.

By way of contrast, Rachel Maddow, newly returned on a five-night basis, can't seem to stop laughing, chuckling, grinning and guffawing and hugely enjoying herself as she makes her way through her nightly discussions of the republic's onrushing end.

We can think of two possible explanations for all this merriment, only one of which involves the pleasures which may be produced by giant piles of cash. That said, we find the nightly pickin'-and-grinnin' amazingly hard to watch.

Lawrence has been pounding away in the 10 p.m. slot. He has also begun describing the extremely limited range of moral vision found within the White House press corps, though he still doesn't name any names.

His work is blowing the rest of the channel away. Rebecca Kutler, will you agree to make his work easier to read and to post?

As for Musk and Trump, is something wrong with these guys? Just to be clear, we're specifically asking if something is clinically wrong with this pair. 

It seems like the world's most obvious possibility! At present, we're planning to address that topic—the possibility of a clinical issue—in our reports next week.

No, it won't make any difference. But what's a truth-teller to do?

For extra credit only: Whay do you think? Is Thomas Friedman flirting with clinical language at the start of his current New York Times column?

What’s Most Frightening About Trump’s Gaza Ravings

President Trump’s plan to take over Gaza, remove its two million Palestinians and turn the coastal desert strip into some sort of Club Med proves only one thing: how short a distance it is between out-of-the-box thinking and out-of-your-mind thinking.

I can say with confidence that Trump’s proposal is the single most idiotic and dangerous Middle East “peace” initiative ever put out by an American president.

Still, I’m not sure what is more frightening: Trump’s Gaza proposal, which seems to change by the day, or the speed with which his aides and cabinet members—almost none of whom were even briefed on it in advance—nodded their approval of the idea like a collection of bobblehead dolls.

[...]

President Trump, I repeat: There is a real case for you to make for fresh thinking about this problem. But your plan for Trump Gaza is not fresh thinking. It is fresh riffing. It is loopy concepts of a peace plan tossed out without vetting by aides or allies, the details of which you change every day, forcing your bobblehead aides to nod vigorously—without any regard for long-term U.S. interests or their own credibility. It is a plan that will love Israel to death, bring Iran back to life and destabilize every American friend.

That's how the column begins and ends. In Friedman's view, Trump's "ravings" make it seem like he's "out of his mind."

Is Friedman hinting at a clinical problem? In our view, it's time that he did.

Musk and Trump are straight outta Hans Christian Andersen. The rules say our scribes mustn't notice.

"Something we were withholding made us weak?" We believe Robert Frost said that!

Tomorrow: Four out of four Stepfords agree

Next week: Sociopathy and its discontents


(JOURNALISTIC) MADNESS: "Elon Musk misinformed Trump!"

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2025

In the Catturd seat: It's as we told you yesterday:

An intellectual giant named "Catturd" said it. And when Catturd said it, the intellectual giant Elon Musk believed it—or at least, so it had seemed. 

Forbes came along and debunked the claim. But Donald J. Trump was intrigued.

Catturd had launched an accusation against Samantha Power—and Power was one of the others. When she was head of USAID, she had looted the treasury of millions of dollars—or so Musk had seemed to believe, based on Catturd's tweet.

When people like Musk follow people named Catturd, a "night assault" is underway—and sure enough! Tuesday afternoon, right there in the Oval Office, the commander wanted to hear it again:

TRUMP (2/11/25): Could you mention some of the things that your team has found, some of the crazy numbers, including the woman that walked away with about thirty million?

MUSK: Right...

To appearances, "the woman" in question was Power. As Musk continued with his response, he somehow knew enough to avoiding saying her name.

So it went as the "night assault" continued. It was an assault of the Information Age, a night assault against the reign of rational conduct itself. 

Catturd spoke, and the president listened—and this was no isolated event. Last Friday evening, a major figure in "cable news" had actually told the world this:

GUTFELD (2/7/25): DOGE has exposed a pile of programs funded by USAID to foster gender and trans propaganda in foreign countries—countries where such things don't seem to benefit stability. Because nothing will bring a Muslim country together like drag queens reading the Koran to kids.

[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

But that's the point. You have to destroy the world to build a new one where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms. 

Say what? USAID has been working "to build a new [world] where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms?" That was the point of the agency's conduct?

For the record, the gentleman cited no example of any such Muslim country, but that's what the gentleman said! In Tuesday morning's report, we posted the full text of his "monologue." 

Before long, he added this:

GUTFELD: As we learn that USAID was creating instability abroad, we see these same dirty tricks coming home. Because once you find yourself with a populist president who wasn't the elite choice, instability must be created artificially. Which means introducing the endless combustion of identity politics.

Elevate one's identity among others and you create conflict among groups, and there goes populist unity. People turn on themselves. What seemed to be an exported strategy to handicapped third world nations returned to where it started, like a sexually confused boomerang.

So imagine if we looked at America as a foreign country when Trump won. USAID did! You had a populist president, not an establishment puppet. What followed? Organized and immediate protests—race gender, climate, the three horsemen of funded, organized dissent. 

It was a color revolution, funded by people who pay taxes. Suddenly, you had trained agitators in the street with fresh signs and robust crowds and fueling the media that pushes incendiary hoaxes.

Add to that a crusade against so-called misinformation to empower censorship. Sound familiar? Sounds like everything USAID did in other countries.

Now maybe we didn't mind USAID before. Sure, they toppled governments overseas, but that wouldn't happen here. Now, by shining a light on what they and our government is doing, we find that they did try to destroy a populist movement for being a challenge to their power, with identity politics as a weapon. It was divide and conquer.

According to the "cable news" star, it wasn't just the looting of federal coffers described by Catturd. According to this influential Catturd type, USAID had been trying to destroy the MAGA movement for being a challenge to their power.

Hereat home, USAID had been trying to destroy the MAGA movement! They'd been using the same methods they employed to topple foreign governments!

According to Forbes, Catturd's claim turned out to be bogus. What about this set of claims?

We'll suggest that you see it for what it is! For now, let's start by considering what was said on Fox & Friends this morning.

Every so often, producers on the highly watched show produce an embarrassment of this type. This morning, Steve Doocy was tasked with interviewing Andrew Natsios, the (Republican) director of USAID under President George W. Bush.

Within the past week, Natsios has been shooting off his mouth all over Blue America's cable news programs. This morning, speaking to Doocy, he actually said that a certain unmistakable genius had misinformed President Trump about all those fiendish condoms!

Doocy struggled with the pronunciation of his guest's name. After that, this first exchange occurred, as a list of bogus claims scrolled past on the screen:

DOOCY (2/13/25): Andrew, apologies on the name. 

You know, we've been talking on the channel for a couple of days about some of the questionable USAID expenditures, and we've got a list of them. You would admit, those are head scratchers in some cases because they drifted away from the original goal of the agency. 

NATSIOS: Yes, but those aren't USAID projects. Those are State Department projects. Elon Musk misinformed the president. He said there was $50 million worth of condoms sent to Gaza. He meant—what the record shows, it's Gaza Mozambique, not Gaza Israel. 

And the project wasn't for condoms. It was for HIV AIDS—anti-retrovirals.

We sent condoms into Afghanistan—not to the Taliban—to health clinics that USAID had helped build twenty-five years ago, when I took over USAID. And they were sent in because a famine is developing there, and the first people who die in a famine are children under 5, pregnant women and lactating mothers...

Natsios went on from there with all his crazy talk. According to Natsios, the genius Musk had gotten everything right, except for what the money was for and where the money was spent, and except for the claim that this had been a USAID project. 

Other than that, the intellectual giant had gotten everything right!

Stating the obvious: As the flooding of the zone continues, none of these dueling claims will ever get straightened out.

Trump, of course, had taken the alleged $50 million in condoms—said to be $50 million in condoms to Hamas—and he had doubled the claim. 

In his typical way, he had said that USAID had sent $100 million of condoms to the Hamas gang. "Think of it," he dumbly said. To see him say it, click here. 

Natsios challenged an array of claims which have ruled the air at Fox. On CNN and MSNBC, he has engaged in much longer discussions within the past week.

President Trump had loudly declared that the fiendish USAID shipped $100 million in condoms—to Hamas, no less. When such statements are widely broadcast in the absence of challenge, that's the shape of a "night assault" on the foundations of an Information Age culture. 

Achaeans stormed the walls of Troy during the Late Bronze Age. Today, the Catturds are storming our own society's bulwarks.

Meanwhile, what was USAID really doing when Power and Natsios were in charge? 

In this morning's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof starts to describe the sorts of events which start to occur when the Catturds overrun a modern society's walls and place their own types in charge:

The U.S.A.I.D. Chaos Already Has Dire Effects

[...]

President Trump and Elon Musk were entirely right that America’s aid programs merited scrutiny and reform. Yet so far what these two billionaires have achieved is to crush the world’s poorest children in a cauldron of confusion and cruelty.

Having covered the United States Agency for International Development for decades, I reached out to my contacts around the world to get the real story of the Trump-Musk demolition.

In Sokoto, Nigeria, toddlers are starving because emergency feeding centers supported by U.S.A.I.D. have run out of the nutrient-rich paste used to save the lives of severely malnourished children. Nearby warehouses have the paste but can’t release it without a waiver from the agency—which is in such Muskian chaos that it can’t issue the waivers.

“Thousands of children can die,” said Erin Boyd, a former U.S.A.I.D. nutrition adviser who told me about the situation there.

[...]

Accounts of mayhem are flowing in from around the world...

That said, who are you going to believe? A person who has reported from all the countries where toddlers are starving and children will die? Or will you instead decide to trust an internet giant like Catturd?

Last Friday night, a major figure in "cable news" advanced a remarkable set of claims about what USAID has been doing—possibly the direction of Natsios, but surely under the direction of the fiendish Power. 

Before he started his monologue, he had entertained his large viewership in a familiar way. He'd offered a joke which turned on the premise that Joy Behar—she's 83 years old—is just too freaking fat.

(On this occasion, Behar was compared to an elephant—to a "pooping elephant" at that! This disordered 60-year-old man behaves this way every night. Other things he said this night were uglier and worse, and were baldly misogyny-adjacent. This is part of a "night assault" on our failing culture. Beyond that, it's an obvious form of journalistic insanity.)

Friday evening, his monologue done, the fellow's four panelists were asked to comment on what he had said about USAID. Tomorrow, we'll show you some of what the four flyweights said. 

For today, we'll limit ourselves to saying their names. People like these should be famous:

Gutfeld! panelists; Friday, 2/7/25
Todd Piro: Co-host, Fox & Friends First
Dagen McDowell: Co-host, The Big Money Show
Rob Long: Writer and television producer
Kat Timpf: Regular panelist on Gutfeld! 

Those four were invited to speak.

We've called them "stooges"—Stepfords, even! Tomorrow, we'll give you the chance to decide:

In an era where people like Catturd and Musk hold sway, even as toddlers and children starve, have our assessments of these hirelings been sufficiently fair and balanced?

Tomorrow: Four out of four agree to agree with what has just been said!

WEDNESDAY: Chait mentioned the Journal's report about Musk!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2025

We gave the report a look: Is something "wrong" with Elon Musk? Could something be clinically wrong?

We can't offer a clinical assessment. But in the realm of the colloquial, good God! 

Is there any bullsh*t this disordered man doesn't rush to affirm? Last Friday, at the Atlantic, Jonathan Chait offered this report on that general topic, dual headline included:

Paranoia Is Winning
How Elon Musk’s conspiracy theories became official White House policy

The Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate USAID is many things: an unfolding humanitarian nightmare, a rollback of American soft power, the thin end of a wedge meant to reorder the Constitution. But upon closer examination, it is also an outbreak of delusional paranoia that has spread from Elon Musk throughout the Republican Party’s rank and file.

Soon Musk declared that he had uncovered explosive evidence for this belief: The agency had funneled $8 million to Politico. Why exactly the Marxist plotters at USAID would select Politico as the vehicle for their scheme—its owner, the German media giant Axel Springer, has right-of-center politics with a strong pro-Israel tilt—has not been fully explained. But Musk’s discovery soon rocketed across X, the social-media platform he owns and uses promiscuously, and became official government policy.

“LOOKS LIKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLLEN [sic] AT USAID, AND OTHER AGENCIES, MUCH OF IT GOING TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA AS A ‘PAYOFF’ FOR CREATING GOOD STORIES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS,” Trump wrote on his own social-media site, Truth Social. “THE LEFT WING ‘RAG,’ KNOWN AS ‘POLITICO,’ SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED $8,000,000 … THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY!”

In fact, USAID has not given millions to Politico. The agency subscribed to E&E News by Politico, a premium service that provides detailed, fairly boring, and decidedly noncommunist coverage of energy and environmental policy...

In fact, USAID had "spent $24,000 on E&E subscriptions for its staff in 2024, and $20,000 the year before." According to Chait, that's less than $8 million per year. USAID had engaged in this conduct because its employees need to be well informed.

However it may have been intended, clinical language was sitting right there, right in Chait's opening paragraph.

An accusation of "delusional paranoia" can also be an example of colloquial language. But it's long past time for normal people to stop tolerating the recklessness—and the sheer stupidity—of the colloquial nutcase Musk.

In this instance, the recklessness and the stupidity jumped from one "nutcase" over to the other. And just for the record, no:

This idiocy didn't turn out to be THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY! As a simple matter of fact, it wasn't a scandal at all—and the whole fandango had been built, once again, on the blindingly dimwitted way Musk will promote any claim he has heard if he dumbly finds it pleasing.

People need to stop tolerating this man's disordered behavior. Journalists need to spend more time speaking more frankly about this big colloquial nut, while also saying the names of his flyweight enablers at places like the Fox News Channel.

Briefly, let's be fair. "World's richest persons" may sometimes end up saying the darndest things and behaving in reckless ways. If memory serves, Howard Hughes—another rich person—became a bit nutty himself. 

Reportedly, it can happen! That said, consider this:

Along the way, Chait cited a report we'd never read or perused. We have no idea what the ultimate truth might be, but here's what Chait reported:

The process by which Musk came to his conclusions does not inspire great confidence. His expertise lies mostly outside public policy. He arrived in Washington, D.C., and quickly set out to prove that he could identify at least $1 trillion in annual waste and fraud, a figure wildly out of scale with the conclusions of every serious expert. He claims to be working 120 hours a week, yet is posting on X at a manic pace, sending more than 3,000 tweets a month, at all hours of the night. Musk has acknowledged that he has a prescription for ketamine, a drug that can cause unpredictable behavior if abused. Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that people close to Musk worry that his recreational drug use—including “LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms,” according to the article—was driving his erratic behavior and could adversely affect his businesses. (His attorney accused the Journal of printing “false facts,” and told the paper that Musk is “regularly and randomly drug tested at SpaceX and has never failed a test.”)

Unless we're mistaken, Musk had originally said or seemed to say that he could wring at last two trillion dollars out of the annual budget. That claim even more out of touch with basic reality than was the claim Chait cited. 

That said, there it sat—a citation of Musk's manic behavior, linked up with that report in the Wall Street Journal.

We repeat! The report (from January 2024) appeared in the Wall Street Journal, not in some Blue American vessel. The report was long and quite detailed. Dual headline included, this is the way it began:

Musk Has Used Illegal Drugs, Worrying Leaders at Tesla and SpaceX
Some executives and board members fear the billionaire’s use of drugs—including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms and ketamine—could harm his companies

Elon Musk and his supporters offer several explanations for his contrarian views, unfiltered speech and provocative antics. They’re an expression of his creativity. Or the result of his mental-health challenges. Or fallout from his stress, or sleep deprivation.

In recent years, some executives and board members at his companies and others close to the billionaire have developed a persistent concern that there is another component driving his behavior: his use of drugs. 

And they fear the Tesla and SpaceX chief executive’s drug use could have major consequences not just for his health, but also the six companies and billions in assets he oversees, according to people familiar with Musk and the companies.

The world’s wealthiest person has used LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, often at private parties around the world, where attendees sign nondisclosure agreements or give up their phones to enter, according to people who have witnessed his drug use and others with knowledge of it. Musk has previously smoked marijuana in public and [he] has said he has a prescription for the psychedelic-like ketamine. 

The report goes on and on from there, then it goes on some more. The report appeared in the Wall Street Journal, not in some bright blue locale.

We don't have the slightest idea what might be "wrong" with Musk. We do know that something is, in fact, unmistakably wrong with this manifest nutcase. We also know that the time is long past when people who are decent and sane should stop tolerating the clown shows staged by this overt nut.

Colloquially, Musk is an undisguised nut. So is his all-caps, nutcase commander.

These emperors are adorned in suits of see-through clothes.  The time has come when decent people need to stop being polite—journalistically deferential—about the stone-cold nuttiness driving this state of affairs.

"Something we were withholding made us weak?" We believe Robert Frost said that!

(JOURNALISTIC) MADNESS: When "Catturd" launched a bogus claim...

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2025

...Citizen Musk affirmed it: Is something "wrong" with Elon Musk? How about with Donald J. Trump?

To our eye and to our ear, Musk has the possible feel of a stone-cold nut, with the commander not far behind. Under current arrangements, major American journalists may be required to pretend that they haven't quite read the same vibe.

Yesterday, the world's richest person saved a couple of bucks on childcare as he appeared in the Oval Office. He was accompanied by the nominal president, but also by a 4-year-old boy who was initially thought to be one of Musk's "engineers."

The richest person proceeded to emit a lengthy string of claims.  Is something possibly "wrong' with Musk, even if only colloquially? How about with Glebova and Nelson, the "journalists" at the New York Post who assembled this (imitation of a) news report:

Musk defends mass DOGE firings, says the US should not ‘live in a bureaucracy’

Elon Musk defended the work of the Department of Government Efficiency Tuesday, saying the US should not be run by a “bureaucracy.”

Speaking next to President Trump in the Oval Office, the tech mogul argued he’s carrying out the commander-in-chief’s mandate by moving to fire thousands of government workers and cutting back on federal spending.

So the report began. In time, the journalists offered their account of Musk's various claims:

“We do find it sort of rather odd that there are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have, ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position,” Musk claimed.

“Which is what happened to USAID. We’re just curious as to where it came from….I think the reality is that they’re getting wealthier at taxpayer expense.”

Musk did not provide any specific examples, though foreign contracting historically has been vulnerable to fraudulent self-dealing.

[...]

Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, claimed that his team has found instances of 150 year old people collecting Social Security benefits and suspiciously rich federal workers who he suspects of self-dealing.

“Just a cursory examination of Social Security, and we got people in there that are 150 years old. Now, do you know anyone 150? I don’t, okay. They should be on the Guinness Book of World Records. They’re missing out,” Musk said.

“I think they’re probably dead. That’s my guess. Or they should be very famous. One of the two.”

The DOGE leader further highlighted what he said was a confounding issue slowing the pace of federal retirements.

“We were told that the most number of people that could retire possibly in a month is 10,000…because all the retirement paperwork is manual on paper. It’s manually calculated. They’re written down on a piece of paper. Then it goes down a mine,” he said.

“There’s a limestone mine where we store all the retirement paperwork… we will post some pictures afterwards…and the limiting factor is the speed at which the mine shaft elevator can move determines how many people can retire from the federal government.”

Musk also acknowledged that he can be wrong at times as he highlights examples of the alleged waste on X, which he owns—including recent criticism of $50 million in US-funded condoms for Gaza, which turned out to be Gaza province, Mozambique, rather than the Hamas-ruled Palestinian enclave.

“Some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. so nobody’s going to bat 1,000. You know, we will make mistakes, but we’ll act quickly to correct any mistakes,” he said.

“I’m not sure we should be sending $50 million worth of condoms to anywhere, frankly…That is really an enormous number of condoms if you think about it. But you know, if it went to Mozambique instead of Gaza, I’m like, ‘Okay, that’s not as bad. But still, you know, why are we doing that?’

He said we shouldn't be shipping that many condoms anywhere! That's how the "news report" ended.

Is something wrong with Musk and Trump? For now, let's start with the messaging tandem turned loose by the New York Post—with the way they chose to report Musk's various declarations.

Over at the New York Times, Haberman, Schleifer and Kanno-Youngs also filed a news report about Musk's presentation. Their offering sits on today's front page, but their report starts with words of warning, right from the headline on down:

Appearing With Trump, Musk Makes Broad Claims of Federal Fraud Without Proof

The billionaire Elon Musk said in an extraordinary Oval Office appearance on Tuesday that he was providing maximum transparency in his government cost-cutting initiative, but offered no evidence for his sweeping claims that the federal bureaucracy had been corrupted by cheats and officials who had approved money for “fraudsters.”

Answering questions from the media for the first time since his arrival in Washington to run the Department of Government Efficiency, Mr. Musk stood next to the Resolute Desk and asserted that his work was in the interest of the public and democracy. President Trump sat behind the desk, chiming in with approval as he let the world’s richest man expound for roughly 30 minutes on the rationale for the drastic overhaul of the federal bureaucracy.

The goal is to “restore democracy,” Mr. Musk said. “If the bureaucracy’s in charge, then what meaning does democracy actually have?”

Among Mr. Musk’s claims, which he offered without providing evidence, was that some officials at the now-gutted U.S. Agency for International Development had been taking “kickbacks.” He said that “quite a few people” in the bureaucracy somehow had “managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position,” without explaining how he had made that assessment. He later claimed that some recipients of Social Security checks were as old as 150.

And so on from there. First in the headline, then all through the report, the Times reporters stressed the fact that Musk had "offered no evidence" in support of his various claims, even as the nominal president was "chiming in with approval." 

Citizen Musk hadn't "explained how he made" his assessments, the Times reporters noted. He had advanced an array of claims "which he offered without providing evidence."  

He had made "broad claims without proof."

Over at the New York Post, Glebova and Nelson—perhaps like Trump—had apparently failed to notice such omissions. They had also failed to notice the fuzziness of some of the fellow's claims—for example, the claim about the number of people who are able to retire each month from the federal government.

The gentleman said the number was only ten thousand—rather, he said that's what he'd been told. He didn't say if he'd fact-checked the thing he said he'd been told. He did seem to imply that this state of affairs represented a major problem—was part of a "confounding issue.".

Only ten thousand per month! Multiplying by twelve, that would work out to 120,000 such retirements in the course of a single year.

That said, how many federal workers want to retire in the course of a year? We can't say with total certainty, nor can we report the extent to which the situation Musk described creates a major problem.

We can tell you this:

The limestone mine Musk almost seemed to have discovered was reported, in great detail, all the way back in 2014, in this detailed news report by the Washington Post. Musk's team had quite possibly broken this story by reading an eleven-year-old mainstream news report! 

(For Sarah Rumpf's report on this matter, you can just click this.)

As a four-year-old crawled over his neck, Musk reported what he said he'd been told about this confounding issue. At this site, we don't know if he was ever told any such thing. Also, has he ever tried to determine if the number he says he's been given represents some sort of "confounding issue?"

We don't have the slightest idea, and neither does Donald J. Trump. That said, other claims and suggestions by Musk seem to be baldly inaccurate (or worse), a fact the writers at the New York Post managed to walk on by.

Consider again this eye-catching claim, reported by the Post:

"There are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have, ostensibly, a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth." 

That sounds like a troubling claim! That said, what lies behind it?  

For starters, understand this. This statement by Musk was triggered by a question from the seated commander. As you can see in the third minute of this CNN videotape, the nominal president made this early request of the world's richest person:

TRUMP (2/11/25): Could you mention some of the things that your team has found, some of the crazy numbers, including the woman that walked away with about thirty million?

MUSK: Right...

As you can see, it was in response to that request that Musk offered a fuzzier version of an earlier bogus claim. 

As you can learn at Mediaite, Trump's request seemed to refer to an earlier bungled claim about Samantha Power, former head of USAID. We refer to an online claim by the mental giant named "Catturd"—a claim which Musk had seemed to reinforce in his typical reckless way.

Full disclosure! Major news orgs may be inclined to avoid fact checks of such claims, knowing that any discussion of such bogus claims will only result in their wider promulgation.

That said, Forbes fact-checked and rejected this claim when Catturd and Musk advanced it. (Headline: "Elon Musk Pushes False Claim Ex-USAID Chief Earned $23 Million.") 

That said, so what? Yesterday, there sat the president of a failing nation, asking to hear that song again. In response, Musk offering a fuzzier version of the discredited hit. 

Meanwhile, are there any real examples of federal employees who end up as inexplicable multimillionaires? If there are, Musk has never provided them. We know of no obvious reason to assume that he ever will.

All in all, the stupid sh*t went on and on from this apparent nutcase. As has been noted again and again, his initial claim about the $50 million in condoms-to-Gaza had been clownishly wrong. 

Regarding those condoms, Musk now said they'd been sent to Gaza province in Mozambique, not to the Gaza strip. That also seems to be wrong—but over at the New York Post, Glebova and Nelson ended their pseudo-report with that adjusted assertion by Musk, letting readers believe that the wondrous fellow had only been partially wrong.

Final question: 

Has this fellow really discovered "that some recipients of Social Security checks are as old as 150?" We know of no reason to assume that he has, but that claim would be easy to document. 

Does any such situation exist? Such claims can get all around the world before such questions can even get asked. Do you believe there are any such recipients? Do you think Musk will ever be asked?

Is something wrong with Elon Musk? To our eye and ear, the reckless person in question qualifies (colloquially) as a possible bit of an apparent nutcase. 

This afternoon, we'll link you to the Wall Steet Journal's detailed report about his apparent drug use in the fairly recent past. To our eye and ear, something does seem to be wrong with this reckless man, though we have no idea what it is.

To our eye and ear, the man in question qualifies (colloquially) as a possible nutcase. On a journalistic basis, yesterday's performance in the Oval was as an imitation of life.

It was an imitation of rational life. So too with the "news report" in the New York Post.

That said, this kind of (journalistic) madness is general over the culture. Over at the Fox News Channel, is Greg Gutfeld involved in some such form of (colloquial) madness?

It's as we noted in yesterday's report. Last Friday night, he seemed to make an array of very strange claims about the work of USAID—about its work around the globe but also here at home.

He was surrounded by four helpmates. Tomorrow, we'll say their names.

After his nightly dose of ugly "jokes," Gutfeld made an array of peculiar claims in his "monologue." After he finished his oration, it was time for the Stepfords to speak.

What did these four imitations say? Tomorrow, we'll continue with our portrait of the "night assault" on the dying culture of our own sacred Troy.

That's what we'll do tomorrow. Yesterday, Donald J. Trump said this:

Tell us about that woman again! Tell us what Catturd said!

Donald J. Trump lodged that request. Musk did his best to comply.

Tomorrow: Each panel member agreed!


TUESDAY: "Nuttier than you even think?"

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2025

Ever so slowly they turn? Is something (clinically) wrong with President Trump? Is it possible that some such state of affairs playing a role in our politics?

We think it's a blindingly obvious question, but we can't offer some such assessment. Then again, are some of the nation's lagging indicators slowly starting to turn?

In this morning's report, we cited Gail Collins. In her current Conversation at the New York Times, this is what she said:

When Trump announced that he thought the United States should take over Gaza and “own it,” that struck me [as] another deeply scary sign that our president is … just nuts. (Collins' punctuation)

To our ear, we wondered if we were hearing a change in the weather. 

Later, such words as "insane" and "madness" were on display on last evening's Last Word, then again on today's Morning Joe. (For "utterly insane," click here.)

Have we started hearing such language more often? Here was James Carville, this very day, on Jim Acosta's new podcast, discussing President Trump:

CARVILLE (2/11/25): People come up right now. My sense is that, people are just like, "What’s going on? Can you explain this to me?"

ACOSTA: Yeah. Yeah.

CARVILLE: You know, "I'm confused. I never—" And the truth of it is, he’s mad.

ACOSTA: Yeah.

CARVILLE: And I— I don’t want to—

ACOSTA: He’s flailing—

CARVILLE: And it's internal stuff. I’ve heard that, you know, secondhand—people that have been to the White House. It’s more, "Okay, it’s nuttier than you even think."

ACOSTA: Yeah.

CARVILLE: Okay, it’s— Anything that you hear— This is secondhand information. Some of it is gossip. But pretty reliable people are coming out of there saying, “Man, you don't believe this!”

"This is secondhand information," Carville said. "Some of it is gossip." 

Beyond that, we don't know what Carville meant, or didn't mean, by his choice of words. Also, we don't know what people have specifically said to Carville.

For ourselves, we aren't in a position to do anything but wonder about this possible state of affairs. Also, introducing such considerations into the discourse is a challenging proposition.  We've always recommended sympathy—pity, even—for the loss of human potential

That said, to watch the tape, you can just click here. Ever so slowly they turn?

Regarding the possibility of (clinical or colloquial) "madness," it's a bit like changes in the New England weather. If you want the latest example, you don't have to wait around long.

In fairness, the conduct can sometimes be comically daft. Consider the change in the weather announced by Pete Hegseth. We'll let the BBC roll out the basics:

Hegseth orders Fort Liberty be renamed Fort Bragg

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered military base Fort Liberty, located in North Carolina, be reverted to Fort Bragg.

The order contravenes a measure backed in Congress that led to the renaming of the army base in 2023, which was part of a wider initiative to rename military installations commemorating figures linked to the Confederacy.

Hegseth said the base will now be named after a World War Two veteran, Pte Roland L Bragg, rather than its original namesake, Gen Braxton Bragg, a Confederate soldier who lost a number of battles in the American Civil War.

"That's right, Bragg is back," Hegseth said during the signing, in a video posted on his social media account.

And so on from there.

"Bragg is back," he comically said. Here's the basic lay of the land:

Back when he was still at Fox, Hegseth hated the name change. It was part of the screeching regime known as "woke."

Now he's changed the name back! Except he's agreed to change the official account of who the name refers to!

In other words:

The initial "wokeness" was correct. He wasn't willing to roll the initial decision all the way back.

Solomon never split the baby. Today, you're allowed to enjoy a mordant chuckle:

Comically, Hegseth has!

(JOURNALISTIC) MADNESS: USAID was trying to topple Trump?

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2025

Can that really be what he said? To our ear, Gail Collins is flirting with (conceptual) danger in this week's Conversation with Bret Stephens.

To our ear, Collins is skating out onto very thin ice. By the established rules of the game, she's not supposed to skate there.

Briefly, let's set the scene! As the center-left Collins begins her dangerous skate, the center-right Stephens has already offered these thoughts about where Trump seems to be going:

Trump Is On the Move

[...]

Stephens: He scares me. There are days when I wake up and think: If this goes on like this for four years, or even four months, we’re going to be living in an unrecognizable republic—one in which lickspittle Republican legislators and cabinet members rubber-stamp every crazy Trump idea, federal court decisions are simply ignored by the executive branch, Elon Musk creates a Department of Personal Efficiency (DOPE) that tracks and scores your every move and a booming economy keeps a majority of voters indifferent to the collapse of civic and constitutional norms. We saw that model play out in the early years of Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship in Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s rule in Turkey.

Oof! As the colloquy continued, Stephens offered some nuance. Eventually, Collins laced up her skates:

Bret: The federal government isn’t some tech start-up where you move fast and break things.

Gail: You know I never argue foreign policy, Bret, but when Trump announced that he thought the United States should take over Gaza and “own it,” that struck me less as an issue of international affairs than another deeply scary sign that our president is … just nuts. [Collins' punctuation]

At this site, sirens started to blare. 

To our ear, Collins was tiptoeing toward a spot on the ice where she knows she mustn't go. With all deliberate tentativeness, she seemed to be wondering if the commander could possibly be clinically disordered—if he might be "nuts" in a way which isn't simply colloquial.

That's how it almost sounded to us. Also, it sounded like Collins knew that she was skating onto a dangerous part of the lake—that she knew she had to carefully couch her words.

Is something "wrong" with Donald J. Trump? No really—could something be wrong with this person?

As we noted all last week, we sometimes speak of mental illness—of "mental disorder"—in colloquial, metaphorical ways. Then too, there are the clinical uses of such terms—and the rules of this game are quite clear:

Our journalists are allowed to speak of literal "mental illness" when discussing types of street crime. By long tradition, they are not allowed to speak in such ways when discussing political figures.

This rule has been in place since (at least) the 1960s. To our ear, Collins was skating toward a place where the ice starts to get rather thin.

This brings us to the astonishing case of a strangely disordered "cable news" star. Twice nightly, on a pair of heavily watched "cable news" shows, he serves as a messaging agent for the corporate entity known as the Fox News Channel.

He's sixty years old—but he's stunningly juvenile, and he's stupendously scripted. In fairness to him, it should also be said that he's extremely well paid.

Is something "wrong" with this person? We speak, of course, of the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld, star of the nightly, primetime TV show, Gutfeld! and co-host of The Five. For today, we'll be ignoring the astonishing coarseness of his nightly presentations. Instead, let's consider the journalistic madness in which he engaged last week.

We return to last Friday night's messaging program. More specifically, we return to his messaging that night about USAID. 

Gutfeld started out as a bit of a NeverTrumper. As of today, he performs as Donald J. Trump's most long-winded and fervent supporter. 

Was Suzanne Scott forced to give him the word at one point? We hope to return to that question this week. For today, we want to show you the full extent of the "monologue" with which he opened last Friday night's Gutfeld! program.

Yes, he actually said the things you see transcribed below! We include the opening part of the monologue—the part of the presentation we included in yesterday's report.

We showed you part of what he said. Below, you see the full transcript:

GUTFELD (2/7/25): All right! To the monologue!

So the Trump administration laid off nearly all of the USAID agency staff, reducing the number from 10,000 worldwide to just under 300.

I know!

[SCATTERED APPLAUSE]

You're welcome!

But oddly, the USAID beneficiaries abroad don't seem to be the ones complaining. The foreign heads of state are so quiet. And yet it's the NGOs crying over the fact that their yearslong scams might be toast. 

And all of this is happening because DOGE has exposed a pile of programs funded by USAID to foster gender and trans propaganda in foreign countries—countries where such things don't seem to benefit stability. Because nothing will bring a Muslim country together like drag queens reading the Koran to kids.

[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

But that's the point. You have to destroy the world to build a new one where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms. 

Now, I've said before that the racial and gender conflict incited in America was designed to keep a unified population from focusing on the bigger problems, like crime, immigration, economy and, of course, corruption. But it wasn't to overthrow a government. It was designed to preserve the government—building a moat around its power. 

And so as we learn that USAID was creating instability abroad, we see these same dirty tricks coming home. Because once you find yourself with a populist president who wasn't the elite choice, instability must be created artificially. Which means introducing the endless combustion of identity politics.

Elevate one's identity among others and you create conflict among groups, and there goes populist unity. People turn on themselves. What seemed to be an exported strategy to handicapped third world nations returned to where it started, like a sexually confused boomerang.

So imagine if we looked at America as a foreign country when Trump won. USAID did! You had a populist president, not an establishment puppet. What followed? Organized and immediate protests—race gender, climate, the three horsemen of funded, organized dissent. 

It was a color revolution, funded by people who pay taxes. Suddenly, you had trained agitators in the street with fresh signs and robust crowds and fueling the media that pushes incendiary hoaxes.

Add to that a crusade against so-called misinformation to empower censorship. Sound familiar? Sounds like everything USAID did  in other countries.

Now maybe we didn't mind USAID before. Sure, they toppled governments overseas, but that wouldn't happen here. Now, by shining a light on what they and our government is doing, we find that they did try to destroy a populist movement for being a challenge to their power, with identity politics as a weapon. It was divide and conquer.

No wonder the left is freaking out. They weren't just exporting chaos to the world. They were growing it here and forcing us to smoke it. 

Yes, the fellow actually said those things--and the quartet of stooges gathered around him rushed to agree with every word he had said. To watch the fellow make those remarks, you can just click here.

Is something "wrong" with this man-—with a 60-year-old man who mocks 80-year-old women, every single night of the week, for being too fat, or for being sexually unattractive, or for having used too much Botox down through the many years?

(Who asked, at least three separate times, if Hunter Biden had started "banging" or [BLEEP]ing" first lady Jill Biden yet? And yes, he actually did that, on at least three separate programs.)

Is something wrong this undisguised imitation of (journalistic) life? For today, let's get clear on what this corporate messaging agent actually seems to have said on last Friday night's program.

Were we simply hearing things, or did this nutcase actually say it? Did he actually say these things about the work of USAID?

Things this nutcase seems to have said:
USAID has been "toppling governments overseas." (No specific example was cited.) 

Here at home, USAID also tried to destroy the MAGA movement. ("Did try to destroy a populist movement for being a challenge to their power.")

Inevitably, USAID had been doing these things "to build a new [world] where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms." 

Did this nutcase corporate messaging agent actually say those things? Yes, we know—it does seem hard to believe!

But you can watch the videotape yourself. To our ear, it's hard to deny that those are the actual things this corporate nutcase seems to have said, as a quartet of corporate Stepfords awaited their chance to agree.

Full disclosure! We've edited out a few of the coarser remarks with which he littered his manifesto. Time permitting, we'll transcribe those edited remarks before the week is done.

For today, we simply wanted you to see what this fellow actually said. You may assume that we've invented those transcribed remarks. For that reason, we again provide the link by which you can watch him making his presentation.

If you choose to click that link and watch, you'll be watching an "imitation of life." You'll be seeing an imitation of journalism, of human discourse itself.  And when the four Stepfords start praising this nutcase for his torrent of strange remarks, you'll weep about the endless potential within our species for disordered if well-paid behavior.

Is something "wrong" with this messaging agent? This week, we're staying within the colloquial realm. We aren't attempting to ask about the possibility of clinical disorder.

That said, is something wrong with this angry, coarse person? Colloquially, we'd say the answer is yes. As the week proceeds, we'll show you the "sources" for this fellow's astounding remarks—and we'll being you to your knees as we transcribe the remarks which followed as the four Stepfords joined in.

This sort of thing transpires around the clock on the Fox News Channel. As it does, the major stars of our own Blue America agree to avert their gaze.

Rachel Maddow won't talk about this. The New York Times won't report this behavior. The children at Mediaite somehow manage to look away, even as they record the nightly fights on CNN's 10 p.m. program. 

This too is a type of mental disorder. And no—a very large, major modern nation can't expect to survive this way.

To our ear, Collins is flirting with a clinical suggestion about the current commander. Concerning the Fox News Channel's messaging agent, we'll simply suggest that he's deeply engaged in journalistic madness.

Rather, he's engaged in a rather obvious form of pseudo-journalistic madness. It's met by total silence from our elites in Blue America as a "night assault" proceeds—an assault we've already lost.

USAID was trying to topple Trump! Let us quote from the glorious Hawthorne:

 “Rappaccini! Rappaccini! and is this the upshot of your experiment!”

Tomorrow: Stepfords, come on down!


MONDAY: San Mateo wins Super Bowl!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2025

Then too, we're embarrassed: San Mateo, California won the Super Bowl—again!

We're almost tired of all the winning. Let's count the wins again.

We start with the man called Terrific—with quarterback Tom Brady. The pride of San Mateo's Serra High went to ten Super Bowls, emerging with seven wins.

In three of those wins, Julian Edelman served as a star receiver. He was MVP of Super Bowl LIII. We'll let the leading authority fill you in:

After high school, Edelman spent a year attending the College of San Mateo. There, he threw for 1,312 yards and 14 touchdowns and rushed for a school-record 1,253 yards and 17 touchdowns. 

Edelman was a quarterback then. Back on the Serra High beat, Lynn Swann had already won Super Bowl XIV with the Steelers, back in the early days.

With that, we move ahead to our coaching tree; we'll start with Dick Vermeil. He was the young head coach at Hillsdale High when we ourselves were a mere student at brand-new, down the road, arch rival Aragon High.

The young man moved on to UCLA, then to the NFL. As head coach of the Eagles, he actually lost Super Bowl XV. 

Decades later, he returned as head coach of the Rams, winning Super Bowl XXXIV.

Along the way, College of San Mateo (CSM) became known as the "junior college of coaches."

As the leading authority notes, Bill Walsh played quarterback at CSM for two years, then went on to win three Super Bowls—XVI, XIX and XXIII—as head coach of the 49ers.

John Madden won Super Bowl XI as head coach of the Raiders. What explains his coaching success? The leading authority tells us:

A football star in high school, Madden played one season at the College of San Mateo, in 1954, before he was given a football scholarship to the University of Oregon.

Madden grew up in Daly City, at the northern end of the county. His childhood friend, Coach John Robinson, graduated from Serra High. As head coach of the Rams, he went to two NFC title games, never reached the Super Bowl.

(He did win a national championship as head coach at USC.)

Finally, let's not forget Sean Payton. As head coach of the Saints, he won Super Bowl XLIV. He didn't stick around very long, but the authority tells us this:

Payton was born in San Mateo, California, and raised in Naperville, Illinois.

San Mateans have almost grown tired of all the Super Bowl wins. Yesterday, the sun-splashed city won again as the blowout loss by the Chiefs stifled a great deal of highly offensive, "Who's the GOAT?" talk concerning Mr. Brady.

We do have one problem in the county. That problem involves Serra High.

A certain "cable news" star also went to Serra. We'll be discussing his latest astounding performance all through the course of the week.

It's hard to know how so much (ugly) journalistic disorder could have emerged from such a sunny land. In fairness, who's to say that the team he has agreed to serve hasn't already secured a win in the fight to end a certain 236-year experiment?

The other team is playing for keeps, or so it appears at this time. It seems that this Serra grad has signed on to work for that team—and in fairness, the money is good.

Forgive us for wasting your time with this crap; nostalgia makes its demands. We'll get back on track tomorrow.

That said:

To our eye and ear, this fellow's undisguised (journalistic) lunacy is part of a "night attack." Over here in Blue America, we've all agreed to avert our gaze from what this imitation of life has been doing in recent years helped along by his circle of friends.

We've all agreed to avert our gaze from the sheer stupidity and from the nightly ugliness. In this way, have we Blue Americans already earned our way out? 

Our team is vastly self-impressed. Borrowing from Professor Knox, a "night attack" is underway. Have we already lost?


(JOURNALISTIC) MADNESS: A nutcase advanced the night assault!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2025

Nobody else said a word: It's hard to capture the madness of what was said last Friday night.

It's hard to capture the madness of the (fully predictable) silence with which that madness was met.

The first madness belongs to Red America; the second madness belongs to us Blues. Camus described the whole fandango in the excerpt from The Plague which we started reprinting last year.

On this morning's Morning Joe, George Conway said that a certain 236-year experiment may be nearing its end. It's hard to capture the madness of the behaviors which occasioned that sensible assessment by Conway.

Also, it's hard to capture the incomprehension of those who say that Conway's assessments hails from the funny farm. in our view, that incomprehension is stunningly deep, but it's also fully human.

(Conway's full presentation can be seen at the Morning Joe site. Click here, then click on this: "George Conway: J.D. Vance is telling us something we should've already known.")

With that, we return to last Friday night, to the latest installment in the night assault. To an imitation of life:

Last Friday night, Greg Gutfeld started his prime time "cable news" show in the normal "Friday night" way. He introduced a panel comprised of four Stepfords. Then he told a few jokes.

The string of jokes began at 10:01 p.m. Mercifully, it was over by 10:06. At that point, it was time for the undisguised madness to start. The madness started like this:

All right! To the monologue!

"To the monologue," he cried. To our ear, it sounded a bit like To the Lighthouse.

By clicking this link, you can see the way the monologue started. Warning—at this point, you can't begin to see the extent of the madness this hireling would offer this night:

GUTFELD (2/7/25): All right! To the monologue!

So the Trump administration laid off nearly all of the USAID agency staff, reducing the number from 10,000 worldwide to just under 300.

I know!

[SCATTERED APPLAUSE]

You're welcome!

But oddly, the USAID beneficiaries abroad don't seem to be the ones complaining. The foreign heads of state are so quiet. And yet it's the NGOs crying over the fact that their yearslong scams might be toast. 

And all of this is happening because DOGE has exposed a pile of programs funded by USAID to foster gender and trans propaganda in foreign countries—countries where such things don't seem to benefit stability. Because nothing will bring a Muslim country together like drag queens reading the Koran to kids.

[AUDIENCE LAUGHTER]

But that's the point. You have to destroy the world to build a new one where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms. 

That's the way the madness started. Yes, that's what he said. Rather, that's the way the madness—and the night assault—began on this one particular Friday night.

As we've noted in the past, Greg Gutfeld is 60 years old, and he comes from a sunny land. He may believe the things he says. It's possible that he doesn't. 

It's possible that he doesn't. But last Friday night, on his prime time "cable news" program, the astonishing picture he was going to paint started out like that.

His full claim was an imitation of life. It involved intimations of something resembling a madness, even the possibility—though only the possibility—of a clinical "disorder." 

What this fellow would go on to say was also a night assault on the foundations of the alleged American enterprise. Despite the wide reach of his TV show, no one in Blue America was going to say a single word about what he said this night, or about the ardent, stunningly stupid reactions from his array of guests.

What did Gutfeld go on to say? To the extent that he was working from sources, who or what were those sources?

Who were the quartet of Stepfords who took turns agreeing with his presentation? We'll explore all those questions this week, but you've now seen the way he began.

In fairness, he started with a basically accurate statement. Very early that very morning, Reuters had reported this:

Trump administration to keep only 294 USAID staff out of over 10,000 globally, sources say

President Donald Trump's administration plans to keep fewer than 300 staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development out of the agency's worldwide total of more than 10,000, four sources told Reuters on Thursday.

Washington's primary humanitarian aid agency has been a target of a government reorganization program spearheaded by businessman Elon Musk, a close Trump ally, since the Republican president took office on January 20.

The four sources familiar with the plan said only 294 staff at the agency would be allowed to keep their jobs, including only 12 in the Africa bureau and eight in the Asia bureau.

In this report from the previous evening, the Associated Press had reported much the same thing.

The sitting commander, Donald J. Trump, had ordered a massive reduction in the work force at USAID! The statement of this fact produced light applause from the Gutfeld! studio audience. 

As it turned out, that's when the madness started. It started with what seemed to be a set of odd remarks.

According to Gutfeld, Elon Musk and his crew at DOGE had "exposed a pile of programs funded by USAID in foreign countries." Gutfeld seemed to say that these programs had been designed "to foster gender and trans propaganda."

His apparent insinuations went on from there. In these first remarks, the TV host seemed to suggest that USAID had (allegedly) sponsored these (alleged) programs in order to undermine the "stability" of those foreign countries. 

Eventually, it would become clear that that was exactly what the Fox News Channel star was alleging—though the craziness of his full allegation went several light-years past that.

"Nothing will bring a Muslim country together like drag queens reading the Koran to kids," the gentleman said at this point. For the record, he would make no specific claim, at any point, about any such USAID program in any specific country.

"Nothing will bring a Muslim country together like drag queens reading the Koran to kids!" And then, he turned to what would be only one part of his claim. According to Gutfeld, this:

DOGE had exposed a pile of programs funded by USAID to foster gender and trans propaganda in foreign countries. 

Such program don't benefit stability in the countries in question. But that was the point. 

"That was the point," the gentleman said! And then, he added this:

You have to destroy the world to build a new one where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms. 

Is that what USAID has been doing in foreign countries? Has the agency been undermining stability in those countries, with the goal of "building a new world where men can watch girls pee in locker rooms?"

Already, it sounded like that's what he was saying. Trust us—at this point, we haven't begun to approach the full crazy of what this possible nutcase now said.

Soon, four helpmates would take turns affirming the messaging this corporate star had advanced. We'll be saying their names this week, but it won't make a lick of difference.

Full disclosure:

The fellow of whom we speak started out anti-Trump! In this June 2023 profile, the New York Times almost seemed to describe a meeting in which the Fox News Channel's Suzanne Scott told him he'd have to shape up.

We'll try to get to all that this week. Meanwhile, please understand this:

You still don't have the slightest idea how crazy last Friday night got.

Is Gutfeld gripped by some form of mental illness—that is to say, by a "mental disorder?" How about people like Musk and Vance? How about someone like President Trump?

Are such people gripped by some clinically diagnosable "mental disorder?" By tradition, that's a perfectly sensible question. But as with history, so too here:

History is written by the victors. So is the question of who was gripped by a "mental disorder."

Meanwhile, how about us Blues? How about our journalistic and academic elites?

Are we perhaps gripped by a mental disorder as we continue to pretend that none of this has been taking place on the Fox News Channel? As we agree to avert our gaze? As we refuse to report?

In our view, it's just as we have told you. Camus described the syndrome in question in his allegorical novel, La Peste (The Plague). 

Before him, so did Hans Christian Andersen, who described the citizens of a fictional empire who were somehow unable to see what was happening right there before them.

Their emperor had a new suit of clothes! Because we humans aren't built for this line of work, citizens of that mythical empire were unable to see or to speak. 

What did Gutfeld go on to say? How did his helpers respond?

We'll try to cover all that this week. That said, did Norman O. Browm get it right all the way back in the 1960s? Also, was Friday night's TV show part of a "night assault," not unlike the ancient assault which brought an end to sacred Troy?

A manifestly angry fellow launched last Friday's assault. Over here, in Blue America, no one said a word. 

As it has been for decades now, everybody seemed to know that they mustn't see or speak. Are we humans built for this work? Has an experiment failed?

Tomorrow: USAID's domestic plot!


SUNDAY: Is there some such thing as a "sociopath?"

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2025

Inquiring minds ought to ask: Kevin Drum, a rational person, is puzzled by Donald J. Trump. 

In the current instance, he's puzzled by an executive order from Trump which could or would have the effect of wiping out medical research.

He voices his puzzlement in the post excerpted below. In turn, some of Kevin's commenters are puzzled by Kevin's puzzlement:

Trump wants to wipe out medical research

[...]

This may or may not happen, or the draft [executive order] might get watered down. But the possibility that anybody is even thinking this is alarming as hell.

And why? What grudge does Trump hold against the entire medical research community? Is this just part of the whole "Fauci is a murderer" thing? Or the more general "tyrants forced us to wear masks" thing? Or the FDA approving the deadliest vaccine ever created?

Or is this a personal Trump vendetta that I'm not up to speed on?

Kevin doesn't exactly know. We don't exactly know either!

At any rate, Kevin seems to be puzzled by the commander's latest action. As we've noted, Kevin's a highly rational person—in general, a good thing to be.

Kevin is a rational person, but no one's fully rational. Also, some people are caught up in "mental disorders" which may make them much less "rational" than most others are. 

To wit:

As we've often noted, the largest study of its kind found that something like 6.5% of adult men can be diagnosed as sociopaths. Or at least, that's what it said in a report in Psychology Today about that largest study.

(Elsewhere, the leading authority on "mental disorder" generally agrees with that number.)

Of course, we all know there's no such thing as a "sociopath!" We all know there's no such thing because there's no such clinical term!

That said, there are accepted clinical terms which are said to (generally) correlate with that colloquial term. Also, there are endless lists of the symptoms and behaviors associated with this alleged "mental disorder." 

(Please don't say "mental illness!")

Within our highly limited discourse, our journalists speak freely about "mental illness" when they're dealing with certain types of "street crime." By virtually universal agreement, they never speak about "mental illness" when discussing actions taken by major political figures.

That said, is it possible that some of the people within our political and pseudo-journalistic elites are "sociopaths?"  For the record, we know that isn't possible, for the reason already stated. But is it possibly possible in the less persnickety sense?

Starting tomorrow, we're going to spend the week discussing that general question. We're going to focus on the astonishing things we saw Greg Gutfeld say on Friday night's Gutfeld! TV show.

As Gutfeld made his astounding remarks, four of the standard stooges gazed silently off into space. But the journalistic lunacy of what this undisguised nutcase said calls for detailed attention. 

As it says in an old book, Attention must be paid! It's a type of attention the New York Times and MSNBC have agreed they will never provide.

Is something "wrong" with Donald J. Trump, or perhaps with someone like Gutfeld? Could that possibly explain the behaviors Kevin seems to find puzzling?

Starting tomorrow: The astonishing things said on "cable news" this past Friday night

As described by Rhymin' Simon: Paul Simon once described a person who couldn't stop lashing out. 

In the famous song, the songwriter is plainly sympathetic to the person in question. The lyrics which eventually explain the unfortunate behavior go like this:

The Boxer

[...]

In the clearing stands a boxer
And a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders
Of every glove that laid him down
Or cut him till he cried out
In his anger and his shame
"I am leaving, I am leaving"
But the fighter still remains

In our view, it's one of the greatest, and most beautiful, of the era's popular songs.

Does the current version of Donald J. Trump "carry the reminder / Of every glove that laid him down / Or cut him," from his (apparently troubled) childhood on?

We can't tell you that. That said, it seems that some people can't stop lashing out "in their anger and their shame." Songwriters have described the syndrome—mental health specialists too.

Power should be withheld from such people. After that, as with Simon's song, we'd recommend pity for the loss of human potential in the person so afflicted.