WHAT REMAINS: Who let the mutts out?

MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2026

This horseplay is all that remains: For starters, let it be said that Chairman Comer seemed to be suitably staffed. 

Two Fridays back, the chairman was on the ground in Chappaqua, prepared to depose Bill Clinton. At the start of the lengthy session, his 34-year-old chief counsel introduced himself: 

"Thank you. My name is Jack Emmer and I am the chief counsel of investigations for Chairman Comer."

Emmer conducted himself in a professional manner during the long day's journey. When the testimony finally began, he thanked the former president "for agreeing to testify today and for your years of service to our country." 

So said the chairman's chief counsel. First, though, the chairman's additional staffers signed in—staffers on the House Oversight Committee, which Comer serves as chairman.

First, seventeen committee members—seventeen members of the House—introduced themselves to Clinton. After that, it became fairly clear that Chairman Comer was suitably staffed:

EMMER (2/27/26): For the record, starting with the majority staff, can the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name, title, and affiliation?

BILLY GRANT: Billy Grant, deputy chief counsel for investigations for Chairman Comer.

PETER SPECTRE: Peter Spectre, deputy director of oversight for Chairman Comer.

DANIEL ASHWORTH: Daniel Ashworth, general counsel for Chairman Comer.

RYAN GIACHETTI: Ryan Giachetti, chief counsel for Chairman Comer.

WILL HARNESS: Will Harness, professional staff member for Chairman Comer.

ANNAH CATHEY: Hannah Cathey, professional staff member for Chairman Comer.

MELVIN SOTO: Melvin Soto, digital director for Chairman Comer.

ALLISON COLEMAN: Allison Coleman, counsel for Chairman Comer.

EMILY FEYERABEND: Emily Feyerabend, counsel for Chairman Comer.

MARK MARIN: Mark Marin, staff director for Chairman Comer.

AUSTIN HACKER: Austin Hacker, communications director for Chairman Comer.

ASHLEY GINGER: Ashley Ginger, deputy staff director for Chairman Comer.

EMMER: Thank you, all. 

Based on a cursory look at their bios, they all seemed to be "majority staff," though we could be wrong about that. At any rate, it seemed that Chairman Comer had managed to arrive on the scene with plenty of help.

This legion was present to question the former president about his past association with the late Jeffrey Epstein. Laboriously, Emmer instructed the former president in the rules of the game—for example, by telling him this: 

EMMER: Furthermore, you cannot tell half-truths or exclude information necessary to make statements accurate. You are required to provide all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement. Do you understand? 

President Clinton said that he did understand. No half-truths would be allowed! 

After roughly nineteen minutes of this, the questioning finally began. The questioning started with this: 

EMMER: Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to testify today and for your years of service to our country. I want to start from the beginning. When did you first meet Jeffrey Epstein?

CLINTON: Well, I will try in this testimony and I will point it out when I'm aware there's a picture or something that predates this. There's a picture where it shows him shaking hands in the White House Historical Association reception. That was in 1993, but I'm not aware of that. I first remember meeting him when I got on his airplane to take the first trip with my foundation in, I think, 2002, whenever it was.

The foundation to which he referred was, in fact, the Clinton Foundation. The trips in question, the former president said, were "four or five trips to Asia and Africa and one to north of Europe on Mr. Epstein's airplane"—trips taken in 2002 and 2003 in connection with the former president's desire "to set up a global network to provide lifesaving AIDS medicine to as many people as possible." 

(For the record, few questions were asked about that effort. For the record, that's because no one actually gives a flying felafel about a tedious topic like keeping AIDS victims alive.)

The deposition took place on Friday, February 27. For the record, the ongoing war on Iran started that very same Friday night. 

For reasons which weren't clear, or possibly were, Hillary Clinton had been deposed the day before.

Based on this transcript from the invaluable Rev, the deposition of President Clinton burned roughly four and a half hours away, not counting time for breaks. When C-Span posted the committee's official videotape, it ran 4:33:48.

As a general matter, Emmer engaged in perfectly reasonable lines of questioning. (When the questions came from other staffers or from some members of Congress, maybe just possibly not.) But in these ways, we've set the scene for the onslaught by the mutts which was destined to follow. 

The committee's official videotape was released on Monday, March 2. The onslaught by the mutts began on Tuesday, March 3.

Who let the mutts out with respect to this deposition? Tomorrow, we're going to say the names of the various performers in question. 

For today, we're going to close by posting an inconsequential exchange—an underwhelming set of Q-and-A's which took place about one hour and fifteen minutes into the committee's official videotape.

During this exchange, Emmer seemed to be testing the president's claim that he and Epstein had engaged in cordial relations on the lengthy plane trips in question but had never been "friends." This semantic distinction came under review—or so it now basically seemed.

You can check the transcript and the videotape for yourselves. For the sake of clarity, we've edited our interjections by the former president's counsel.

You can check the record yourself! Starting at roughly 1:13 on the transcript or tape, this is what you'll find:

EMMER: At this time, I'd like to introduce what'll be marked as Majority Exhibit 14. And while it's being handed out, this is an article published by The New York Times on August 5th, 2025, entitled "A Look Inside Epstein's Manhattan Lair." And once you receive the article, I will just direct your attention to page 10.

[...]

And we're specifically looking at a framed photo on a wooden table, alongside multiple other framed photos. And we're focusing on the photo in the middle, which appears to have a golden frame.

CLINTON: Yeah, okay, I see it.

EMMER: Mr. President, do you recognize yourself in this photo?

CLINTON: I do.

EMMER: And it appears that the man on the right of the photo is Jeffrey Epstein. Is that correct?

CLINTON: I think so.

As can be seen in that New York Times article, a photo exists of Clinton and Epstein, apparently from one of those flights. As can be seen in that article, the photo was on display in Epstein's Manhattan mansion, along with many other celebrity photos, including one of Epstein with the former Pope!

President Clinton said he recognized himself in the one photo under review. The colloquy continued:

EMMER: And for the record, what is happening in this photo?

CLINTON: He's smiling at me. He looks like he's talking to me.

EMMER: This is one of the friendly interactions that you were describing earlier?

CLINTON: Yes.

EMMER: And can you describe the circumstances surrounding this photo?

CLINTON: I do not—I have no idea. I see Richard Branson in the back, and other people [in other photos]. But I don't remember anything about it.

EMMER: Okay, that's fine. And you appear to be comfortable with Mr. Epstein in this photo. Would you disagree with that characterization?

CLINTON: I'm comfortable. I'm comfortable here. I'm not happy, but I'm comfortable.

[Substantial pause]

And my conscience is clear. That helps.

At this point, Clinton and attorney Cheryl Mills continue to look at one or more of the "multiple photos" from the New York Times article. After pausing his questioning. Emmer eventually moves on to a different line of questioning.

Our view? That one photograph was hugely underwhelming, as was that exchange. 

Emmer seemed to be trying to claim that Clinton and Epstein had actually been more friendly than the president had claimed. We'd have to say that line of questioning was underwhelming—was essentially inconsequential. 

Nothing much was taking place as Clinton and Mills continued to look at those photos. But the next night, the Fox News Channel let the mutts out, and the mutts proceeded to behave in their typical way.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what these fiendish creatures said about the brief chunk of videotape before Emmer starts his new line of questioning. More generally, we'll show you what happens when the trainers at the Fox News Channel let the mutts out every night.

As the week proceeds, we'll have more to show you about this deposition—rather, about the way its contents have frequently been portrayed. Most strikingly, we'll show you an exchange about one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims—a poignant observation to which, or so it says here, attention should be paid.

We'll do that later this week. Tomorrow, we'll restrict ourselves to the fun enjoyed by the mutts on last Tuesday's edition of The Five, and then on the Gutfeld! show.

No one in our own Blue America will ever tell you what those performers did that night. More generally, no one will ever report the way they like to roll in the garbage spread out by their handlers most nights. 

At this site, we will tell you this:

Their conduct is bringing the possibility of the American enterprise to an end. 

This steady descent has been underway for a good long time now. We Blues say it started with Newt's list of recommended words. Reds say it began before that.

With respect to last week's events, Blue America's journalists and academics refuse to report the way these mutts behave—won't even say these nitwits' names! 

This has been taking place for decades. What happened last Tuesday can sometimes seem to be all that remains.

Tomorrow: "[Little] beside remains?"

SURROUNDINGS: Wilma Rudloph won the hundred!

SATURDAY, MARCH 7, 2026

Let's call the whole thing off: According to the leading authority on the practice, the practice started like this:

State of the Union 

The State of the Union address is an annual message delivered by the president of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress near the beginning of most calendar years on the current condition of the nation. The speech generally includes reports on the nation's budget, economy, news, agenda, progress, achievements and the president's priorities and legislative proposals.

The address fulfills the requirement in Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." During most of the country's first century, the president primarily submitted only a written report to Congress. After 1913, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. president, began the regular practice of delivering the address to Congress in person as a way to rally support for the president's agenda, while also submitting a more detailed report. With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live in all United States time zones on many networks.

The speech is generally held in January or February, and an invitation to the president is extended to use the chamber of the House by the speaker of the House.

[...]

Because the address is made to a joint session of Congress, the House and Senate must each pass a resolution setting a date and time for the joint session. Then, a formal invitation is made by the speaker of the House to the president typically several weeks before the appointed date.

The practice dates to 1913. By tradition, an invitation is extended to the president. 

The president is invited to come to the House. He's invited to deliver a speech to members of the House and the Senate.

This year, the war in Iran was three days away as the president spoke. Moments after he began his address, he brought in the men's hockey team.

What follows isn't a comment on the men's hockey team, which had recently vanquished Canada. 

With respect to the players on that hockey team, we'll assume that they're good, decent people, though possibly still a bit short of perfect. We think of the words from the Hank Williams song:

I was just a lad, nearly twenty-two.
Neither good nor bad—just a kid like you.

Did Williams actually write those lyrics? The leading authority says no. To us, they're deeply insightful, sacred words—but, at any rate, this:

The president called the players in, as was apparently part of his right under terms of his invitation.

It wasn't the worst thing he could have done. But by the time the evening was done, Peggy Noonan—President Reagan's brilliant speechwriter—was discovered to have written this for the Wall Street Journal:

The Oprah State of the Union 

The president’s State of the Union address came straight from the heart of Crazytown. It had everything—tears, cheers, spectacle. They handed out medals and honors like Oprah in the early 2000s: “You get a car! Everybody gets a car!” At one point I thought he was going to pull out a ceremonial sword and knight Kristi Noem. There was yelling and booing and people crying, it was big and rousing, boring and absurd. And important in some things it revealed.

Ten years in, and Democrats still don’t know how to handle Donald Trump. He used them as foils and they allowed it, sitting there snarling, at points screaming. Part of how to handle him is if he tries to manipulate you into doing the right thing—if, for instance, he challenges you to stand in respect for a mother mourning the murder of her daughter—you put aside that you’re being manipulated and stand. Because it is right to show human sympathy and regard. The thing to do is look better than Mr. Trump, not worse. You say: My base demands coldness. Then get a new base. If you can’t, leave before you are reduced to a soulless husk of the eager, happy person who walked into that chamber a decade ago.

It had everything—tears, cheers, spectacle, awards. Democrats still haven’t figured Trump out.

When the gallery doors swung open and the triumphant U.S. Olympic men’s hockey team marched in, it was vulgar and fabulous. They were wearing their medals and their Ralph Lauren sweaters and smiling and laughing like good young men. We all think we’re above theatrics. Perhaps you had a moment like this: You were home on the couch and you saw the guys bounding in and thought, “I am sophisticated, I know what they’re doing, they’re manipulating me, but I’m not some rube, I’ll watch clinically. Oh Jeez, Jack Hughes’s tooth is still broken, God bless him. The goalie’s chewing gum like some 1945 GI.” And your throat hitched up against your will and your eyes moistened and when they started with “USA! USA!” you gave up, gave in, and pumped your fist. It is a damnable fact of life that great propaganda works even when you know it’s propaganda. 

Was it "vulgar" when the team came in? We wouldn't have used that word. 

Did the event come to us the people "straight from the heart of Crazytown?" That's tough language too!

We'd avoid blaming Oprah Winfrey for any of this. If she once gave away fleets of cars, that was her prerogative. Meanwhile, let it be said, perhaps in search of basic fairness, that President Trump has basically handled the southern border, while possibly making a giant mess of other parts of his spectacularly muddled MASS DEPORTATION versus "Worst of The Worst" presidential campaign brief. 

Noonan is a much better wordsmith than we are. That said, we almost might have gone with words like "bread and circuses"—and that seems to be, in substantial part, akin to some of what Noonan said.

She also referred in that passage to the president's gotcha games that night, though not in those exact words. More on that topic below.

Based on what happened that Tuesday night, we'd say that the State of the Union event has possibly run its course. With all the medals and honors and spectacle and of course with all the theatrics, we'd have to say that it might be time to say this:

Let's call the whole thing off. 

A major war was three nights away. Perhaps in service to military strategy, that topic was barely mentioned.

Instead, we the people were asked to cheer the men's hockey team, which had recently defeated their Canadian teammates—in overtime, no less. Noonan, who's a good, decent person, seemed to say that she had reacted like this:

Despite her sophistication, her throat hitched up against her will and her eyes moistened, and when they started with “USA! USA!” she gave up and pumped her fist.

There's no reason why she shouldn't have reacted that way—large numbers of people did. 

"Great propaganda works," she then said. There Noonan went again!

As we recently noted, we were lucky enough to have attended the so-called "Greatest Track Meet of All Time"—the spectacular U.S. / Soviet Union meet in July 1962. It was held at Stanford Stadium, maybe ten miles from our family's front door 

We saw Bob Hayes win the men's 100. We saw Wilma Rudolph run away from the field in the corresponding women's event.

That event took place at the heart of the nuclear-tinged Cold War. Starting in the first grade, we kids had practiced hiding under our desks to defeat the possible bomb blast.

As the two-day meet took place, the Bay of Pigs had disastrously failed one year before. The so-called "Cuban Missile Crisis"—more on that event below—was now just three months off.

The U.S. men outpointed their Soviet rivals that weekend. The Soviet women won their half of the meet.

We saw Valery Brumel set a world record in the high jump. But the part of that meet which has lasted longest occurred when the athletic events were all done.

Many years later, Red Shannon chronicled the meet in fascinating detail for The Bleacher Report. We'll give you two bites of the apple:

USA vs. USSR, 1962: The Greatest Track Meet of All Time

[...]

While negotiations in Washington and Moscow intended to diffuse a ticking time bomb were falling apart, the few days in Palo Alto leading up to the competition were a demonstration of the very best humanity has to offer.

Private homes were opened up to the Soviets. Spontaneous cross-culture pickup games of basketball and baseball broke out in parking lots and streets. Host families organized informal tours of the many attractions in the San Francisco area. Banquets and press conferences were characterized by levity and mutual respect.

The charming Soviet world-record high jumper, Valery Brumel, entertained the press by doing his famous high-kick, touching a basketball rim with his toe, ten feet above ground.

Not one protest or demonstration marred the entire week.

On Saturday, July 21, 1962, 72,500 track fans filed through the gates of Stanford Stadium. The following day, another 81,000 filled the seats. It was the greatest two-day crowd to ever witness a non-Olympic track meet.

While the enthusiastic fans were indeed partisan, any superb effort was rewarded with cheers, regardless of nationality. The Americans were especially curious to get a look at Brumel and long jumper Igor Ter-ovanesyan who had recently eclipsed Ralph Boston's world record—and of course the famous Press sisters, Tamara and Irina.

In a manner typical of those days, the Americans dominated the sprints, middle distance, and pole vault. The Soviets ruled the longer distance races and jumping events.

The crowd got its money's worth. "Bullet" Bob Hayes, who went on to a second career with the Dallas Cowboys, won the men's 100 meters. His female counterpart, the great Wilma Rudolph, noted for her childhood battle with infantile paralysis, won the women's 100 meters and, through a gutsy anchor leg, secured a dramatic come-from-behind win in the 400-meter relay.

[...]

Perhaps the most symbolic and heart-gripping moment came as the athletes prepared to exit the stadium. The plan was to exit directly through the south end, in two columns. At the head of the columns, American [high jumper] John Thomas and Soviet javelinist Viktor Tsybulenko held a mini summit meeting of their own and decided instead to make a final victory lap.

All the athletes followed in unison, holding hands, embracing, waving their national colors. The fans stood and cheered as the entire formation of American and Soviet athletes completed their lap, then disappeared through the south gate.

The press would report that the American men won, 128-107 and the Soviet women prevailed, 66-41. No one really cared.

And no one wanted to leave. The Marine Corps Band continued to play for nearly an hour. Tears came easily for most of the record crowd as a cleansing torrent of emotion washed over them.

Ralph Boston would later recall, "I can't remember if the Cold War ever came into my mind at any time. All I was thinking was 'here was this super track and field team from the other side of the world...'"

In our view, the wordsmith Shannon got one word wrong. That word—see above—was "perhaps."

Citizen Shannon, please! Perhaps the most heart-gripping moment came as the athletes exited? 

We were physically present that day, and emotion swallowed the stadium as the athletes themselves, but surely the spectators, entertained thoughts of "something higher. Something more enduring," to return to Shannon's words.

The Soviet athletes joined in that long, slow farewell march. They circled the stadium, arm in arm with their American counterparts.

It wasn't the worst thing to see that occur. Three months later, the thirteen days of the Cuban missile crisis took place. 

We ourselves were just a lad, nearly 15—a mere high school sophomore. One day, the spirited junior who would later be Aragon High's head cheerleader approached us and said these words:

"I'm afraid I won't get the chance to grow up."

If film existed of what she said, we think those might be her exact words. And of course, a lot of kids, this very day, don't get the chance to grow up.

Will our political culture ever grow up? The president has handled the southern border, but at that State of the Union event, he responded to his invitation to speak by playing the usual games. 

Noonan didn't use the word gotcha. We'll offer that word on our own.

Responding to an invitation, the president formed a gotcha game aimed at the chamber's Democrats. We'll spare you an extended discussion of his most vaunted gotcha game, but we will remind you of this:

Under terms of their oath to the Constitution, members have obligations to American citizens. But under terms of that same oath, they also have obligations to people who are "illegal immigrants"—to people who are in the country without authorization. 

In theory, they're required to honor both sets of obligations. But the president, playing an increasingly familiar game, seemed to be working from this silly old football cheer that night:

Lean to the left, lean to the right.
Stand up, sit down—Fight fight fight!

Offered an invitation to speak, he responded by playing games with one set of his hosts. We're living in two (2) Americas now, and some of us seem to want to keep pushing farther on.

For ourselves, we didn't care all that much about that U.S. / Canada hockey match. We watched the third period and the overtime, but we didn't much care who won.

Other people very much did—and there was no reason why they shouldn't have! Unless you were watching the agitprop on "cable news," there was also no reason why anyone should feel they had to.

We rooted for the Yanks at that 1962 track meet, but it ended with something larger. We were lucky that we got to attend. As the current war in Iran drew near, the gotcha game the president almost might perhaps have staged was part of the cultural surroundings.

We can still see Wilma Rudolph as she pulled away from the field. Also, we're still able to recall what that high school junior said.

FRIDAY: The scripting when Marimar Martinez was shot!

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2026

The lunacy, just for the record: How crazy can tribal warfare get? 

Just for the record, the answer can look like what you see below. It came from the DHS last October, when Marimar Martinez was shot. 

As a matter of fact, she was shot five times, by a Border Patrol agent. Eventually, it became clear that the account of what had happened from the agent who shot her was jaw-droppingly bogus. 

Recent language about "domestic terrorists" may have started here. It looks like DHS hired some writers from North Korea to come up with this account:

UPDATE: DHS Deploys Special Operations After Multiple Violent Attacks on Federal Law Enforcement by Domestic Terrorists in Chicago

Release Date: October 4, 2025

Three vehicles used as weapons against our brave law enforcement as they work without pay to make America safe again

WASHINGTON – This morning, Border Patrol law enforcement officers were ambushed by domestic terrorists that rammed federal agents with their vehicles. The woman, Marimar Martinez, driving one of the vehicles, was armed with a semi-automatic weapon and has a history of doxxing federal agents. She took defensive fire from CBP agents and has been discharged from the hospital and is currently in the custody of the FBI. The driver of another vehicle, Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz, involved in the ramming has been apprehended by law enforcement.

The scene became increasingly violent as more domestic terrorists gathered and began throwing smoke, gas, rocks, and bottles at DHS law enforcement. Another domestic terrorist was arrested for assaulting CBP at the scene. Following JB Prtizker’s refusal to allow local police to help secure the scene, Secretary Noem has deployed special operations teams to restore law and order.

As our ICE law enforcement was responding to the shooting, a domestic terrorist followed them and rammed their vehicle in an attempt to run them off the road. This individual has also been arrested and is in HSI custody.

An ICE vehicle popped a tire and was subsequently mobbed by domestic terrorists, forcing law enforcement to abandon the vehicle for their own safety. The vehicle was significantly damaged.

Several CBP law enforcement officers were sent to the hospital with various injuries.

Straight outta North Korean AI, the "domestic terrorists" were everywhere that day! Months later, that designation was instantly applied to Renee Good and Alex Pretti when they were fatally shot in Minneapolis.

DHS actually peddled that screeching account of what happened in Chicago last October. Eventually, it became clear that their basic account of the day's events had been jaw-droppingly wrong.

Also included in that dispatch was a "Statement from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin." 

Your assignment, should you choose to accept it:

Never descend into hysteria of that remarkable type.

 

SURROUNDINGS: A detainee tried to eat his own arm!

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2026

She said it not once, but twice: It's been said that Plato wrote it, if only in translation:

"When I saw all this, and other things as bad, I was disgusted and withdrew from the wickedness of the times." 

As we've frequently noted, Plato is said to have written that in the Seventh Letter, which may or not be authentic. Having said that, also this:

The lunacy of the current times was on display this week as Secretary Noem was shown the door. Regarding Secretary Noem herself, we'll make these brief observations: 

Her refusal to Go Full Bondi: To her credit, she didn't Go Full Bondi during this week's congressional hearings. In fact, she didn't imitate Bondi at all. By possible way of contrast:

It's our impression that Senator Tillis (R-NC) is a good, decent person. But in his shouted inquisition about the way Noem once shot her puppy and also a goat, we thought he captured the craziness of the times during the first of the week's two hearings.

Of all the things Noem had done or had possibly done in office, he was shouting at her about that!

Insinuate, insinuate: In our view, Lawrence O'Donnell almost seemed to follow suit on Wednesday night's Last Word. On three separate occasions during the hour, he teased an upcoming discussion of a question he seemed quite eager to discuss—the question of whether Secretary Noem and Corey Lewandoski have been engaged in a sexual relationship. 

He also offered an additional tease, this time (did he actually do it twice?) about "one of the most famous flying bedrooms since Jeffrey Epstein was grounded."

Just this once, we'll be honest. We don't especially care whether Noem and Lewandoski been so engaged. That said, after explicitly teasing Jeremy Raskin as the guest who would he discussing that topic, Lawrence never said a single word to Raskin about this thrilling question.

"Simplify, simplify," Thoreau once said. In the case of Lawrence's unfortunate outing, it was more like this:

"Insinuate, insinuate," especially about matters of sex. 

The collection of scholars on The Five have been playing this game in the past week with respect to the Clintons. Backsliding into one of his unhelpful days—they've been very rare in recent years—Lawrence followed suit on Wednesday night. He was absent last night. 

Costuming issues: It's been said that it was the massive cost of the Mount Rushmore ads which helped seal Noem's fate. In that instance, Secretary Noem had decked herself out, in some of the shots, as a wild west buffalo driver.

For our money, her most egregious costuming decision involved the pose she struck before a crowded cell full of half-naked male prisoners in the early El Salvador days. 

As of this morning, the New York Times was still pretending that it was Noem's expensive watch which made those visuals so inappropriate. Do we Blues have any sexual politics at all? We're forced to suggest that, rather plainly, it was actually something else.

In search of "domestic terrorists:" We'll guess that it wasn't Noem who invented the mandated practice of referring to DHS shooting victims as "domestic terrorists." We'll guess that that rhetorical lunacy came from Stephen Miller, although that's merely a guess.

Last fall, when Marimar Martinez was shot five times in Chicago, she too was instantly called a "domestic terrorist," even way back then. That was long before Noem made herself famous by attaching that insane designation to Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the victims of fatal shootings in Minneapolis this year.

We'll guess that Noem was trying to stick to a pre-arranged messaging diktat. In the case of those fatal Minneapolis shootings, she instantly did so, in a way which took us toward the limits of previously known human dumbness.

The lunacy of the times has been on vivid display in these varied events. That general lunacy was part of the surroundings last week as we the people were moving toward our ongoing war in Iran.

We don't know how that war will turn out; we can imagine it flat or round. That said, the most puzzling episode in Noem's term was revisited a few weeks back.

They picked it up at Mediate. We saw it reported nowhere else. The lunacy of the times is lurking here. Michael Luciano's report started off like this:

Trump Official Disputes Kristi Noem’s Claim About ‘Cannibal’ Who ‘Tried to Eat Himself’ While in Custody 

A wild tale about an undocumented immigrant told by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “is completely false,” a senior federal law enforcement official told The Intercept for a story published on Monday.

Back in June, Noem went on Fox News and claimed that a U.S. marshal told her about a particularly bizarre deportation flight.

“I was talking to a U.S. marshal just yesterday, and he was talking about deporting a plane load of illegals, and one of them was a cannibal,” she said at the time. “He started to eat his own arms. He was such a deranged individual. This is the kind of people President Trump is getting off our streets.”

It's true! Inexplicably, Noem repeated that extremely strange tale during an appearance on Jesse Watters Primetime. How odd was her second-hand story about the cannibal who tried to eat his own arm, presumably as a means of escape? 

It was so odd that it even seemed to give Watters pause!

What could explain the fact that a major federal official had gone on the nation's second most-watched "cable news" show and had repeated this "wild tale"—had seemed to believe that this crazy tale actually seemed to make some sort of sense?

We don't know how to answer that question—but a few days later, Noem repeated the same story with the president at her side. She did so at the high-profile, televised unveiling of the infamous "Alligator Alcatraz" detention site in the Florida Everglades.

A detainee had tried to eat his own arm, presumably as a means of escape! In what world does a major official repeat such a lunatic tale—and not just on one occasion, but in two major settings? 

What can possibly explain the fact that Secretary Noem did that?

We reported those bizarre remarks by Noem in real time, when the remarks were made. In another peculiar sign of the times, the major news orgs of Blue America yawned and looked away. 

A cannibal tried to eat his own arm! She said it not once, but twice!

In conclusion, we'll offer this:

Kristi Noem has to be better than this. We hope she ends up showing it. 

Also, we don't believe in piling on people at times like these—for example, by nosing around about their sexual behavior. The lunacy of the current time really does start at the top—and for the record, we've long suggested that you should pity the child who became that powerful, dangerous man.

We've repeatedly praised O'Donnell of late. On Wednesday, we'd say he briefly crashed and burned, along with one or two guests.

THURSDAY: Sexuality has always been hard!

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2026

But why is he still on the air? It's been hard to chronicle all the surroundings—all the phenomena in the air last week in the run-up to our struggling nation's latest war.

The most difficult such undertaking involves the moral and intellectual squalor which characterizes such "cable news" programs as Gutfeld! and The Five. That's especially true of the throwback sexual politics which dominates those two propaganda messaging shows. 

Sexuality has always been hard! That said, rebellion against the feminism of the past sixty years is especially powerful on those imitation "news" programs. Last Thursday night, that produced the state of affairs in which millions of viewers were subjected to the moral squalor of watching Greg Gutfeld offer this "joke," as we noted this morning:

GUTFELD (2/26/26): Rosie O'Donnell's daughter Chelsea has been accused of assault after touching a man's genitals. 

Apparently, she never learned boundaries growing up watching farmers milk her mom.

The program started at 10 o'clock; he offered that at 10:01. We've always advised you to "pity the child" when you see a 61-year-old person screaming for help, but we offer a superseding question:

Why is that man on the air?

Regarding the blowhard tub of lard who performs on these shows as "Tyrus," we floated a certain suggestion this morning. We'll repost our suggestion in the form of a question:

Yesterday, as he played the fool with respect to the Clintons' depositions, did he mistakenly think that the Clintons had sat for a single joint deposition?

After watching him play the fool on The Five and then on Gutfeld!, that's the way it seemed to us. Now for the rest of the (possible) story:

After posting this morning's report, we read a new essay by Monica Hesse in the Washington Post. When we did, we wondered if we suddenly understood where "Tyrus" might have acquired that misimpression.

Headline included, Hesse's column starts as shown. As she mocks the latest foofaw from the House Oversight Committee, she includes the dumbbell videotape which might well prove misleading to an underinformed observer:

Now streaming! The Clinton depositions were the week’s best new drama.

This week on Season 250 of “America,” the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform offered up the testimonies of a former president and a former secretary of state in the manner of a broadcast network unveiling a new midseason procedural drama.

“EXCLUSIVE,” read the post on X. “Watch the depositions of President Bill Clinton and Secretary Hillary Clinton in front of the House Oversight Committee as part of our investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.”

A 21-second trailer followed: In split-screen, two of your favorite recurring characters—who happen to be married to each other—were each shown sitting at a conference table as an offscreen voice instructed, “Can the court reporter please swear in the witness?” The Clintons’ heads turned, they raised their right hands, and they swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: “I do.”

At that point, Hesse inserted the "21-second trailer" the Oversight Committee had posted. You can watch that 21 seconds of videotape simply by clicking here. 

Our question:

Did a certain "cable news" blowhard get fooled by that 21 seconds of tape?

It looks like the Clintons were there together! Is that what the big blowhard thought?

Sexuality has always been hard, dating all the way back to events in a famous garden. On The Five, but also on Jesse Watters Primetime and on the Gutfeld! program, Watters, Gutfeld and "Tyrus" seem to display a deep desire to return gender norms and expectations to a rather moldy old format.

These fellows seem to want to be in charge in the manner to which they seem to feel accustomed. Especially on Gutfeld!, this leads to endless ugly insults aimed at liberal women by the star of that braindead show. 

We refer to the relentless purveyor of sexual insult who offered this last week:

GUTFELD (2/26/26): Rosie O'Donnell's daughter Chelsea has been accused of assault after touching a man's genitals.

Apparently, she never learned boundaries growing up watching farmers milk her mom.

At Fox, they open this garbage can every night and a tortured person comes slithering out. In Blue America, journalistic and academic elites have all agreed not to notice.

(In fairness, we've reminded you to "pity the child"—to pity the fellow who has possibly had a hard time keeping up with basic rules of decency and respect.) 

Greg Gutfeld could do much better! Having said that, we'll also say this:

Why in the world—why on earth—is he still on the air?

Sadly, also this: In our view, the bulk of Lawrence's O'Donnell's program was weirdly dismaying last night. 

At present, our society seems to be coming apart. On some other disordered day, we'll provide the details.

SURROUNDINGS: Farmers had milked her mom like a cow!

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2026

Watters and Gutfeld go off: Three nights before the war began, the State of the Union event was held. 

On this occasion, we wouldn't necessarily describe it as an "address." Over at the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan didn't seem to care for the foolishness either. 

Headline included, her column started like this:

The Oprah State of the Union

The president’s State of the Union address came straight from the heart of Crazytown. It had everything—tears, cheers, spectacle. They handed out medals and honors like Oprah in the early 2000s: “You get a car! Everybody gets a car!” At one point I thought he was going to pull out a ceremonial sword and knight Kristi Noem. There was yelling and booing and people crying, it was big and rousing, boring and absurd. And important in some things it revealed.

Ten years in, and Democrats still don’t know how to handle Donald Trump. He used them as foils and they allowed it...

Noonan continued from there. 

We don't agree with every word Noonan said. We don't even agree, in every way, with what she said about (our view) the sheer stupidity involved in bringing the men's hockey team in from the cold that night. 

(Noonan: "When the gallery doors swung open and the triumphant U.S. Olympic men’s hockey team marched in, it was vulgar and fabulous.")

We don't agree with everything Noonan said about this "Crazytown" event. But the State of the Union was part of the surroundings as the move against Iran drew near. 

In our view, the sheer stupidity of our devolving political culture was on display that night. That event was part of the surroundings as the move on Iran drew near—but so was the delicious two-day event up north, the Chappaqua depositions. 

Dearest darlings, it was delicious! On Thursday and Friday of last week—late that night, the move on Iran would begin—the pair of Clintons would be deposed about a pair of sexual felons. 

Hillary Clinton would be deposed on Thursday; her husband would be deposed the following day. On The Five, the mutts were well pleased—and yes, the braindead behavior of Fox News Channel "cable news" shows was also part of the surroundings as the start of this war drew near. 

How will this war turn out? Left to our own soothsaying, we have no way to tell you. 

We've seen people who plainly aren't nuts voice approval of the undertaking. (General Clark, come on down!) But on the nation's most-watched "cable news" show, the mutts weren't trying to produce a framework of understanding about the situation in Iran or about anything else. 

Instead, the mugging and clowning about the depositions got started. On Thursday afternoon—one day away from war—the children on our most-watched "cable news" program had some excellent fun with Hillary Clinton's deposition, concerning which little was actually known at that point. 

The children people our most-watched show—but oh, what kind of cultural madness is this? After an utterly pointless pseudo-discussion, one of the culture's leading mutts closed the segment about Thursday's deposition by scrambling to work this in:

PERINO (2/26/26): All right. Jesse, last word?

WATTERS: This was just the appetizer. Bill's tomorrow, and that's where it's at. 

He was on the plane. He may have been on the island. And there's an allegation that he had an affair with Ghislaine Maxwell. So let's just hope they have their stories straight.

PERINO: All right. Well, that will wrap us on The Five...That's it for us. 

He rushed to include the "allegation." There's an allegation, the simpleton said—the simpleton who also serves as a propaganda messaging agent for the corporation which owns him. 

So it went as the nation's most-watched imitation of life went off the air that day. As of yesterday, the various mutts were still having their fun with last week's depositions, though it seemed fairly obvious that the biggest dumbass of them all had exactly zero idea what he was talking about.

By yesterday, the former "wrestler" who performs as "Tyrus" had had six days to get straight about these depositions. At the invaluable Rev, you can read the transcript of the million things Bill Clinton said, even including this:

QUESTION (2/27/26): Can you briefly, for the record, describe the nature and extent of your relationship with Ms. Maxwell?

CLINTON: Yes. It lasted longer and was more extensive than my relationship with Mr. Epstein, because Ghislaine Maxwell started going with a man named Ted Waitt, who had made a lot of money making the first sort of self-designed computers, and he was a big supporter of mine and the Clinton Foundation before he started seeing Ghislaine. 

We had been friends, and he was interested in particular in reducing pollution in the oceans. And so when she started going with him, I would see her from time to time.

QUESTION: And when did your relationship with Ms. Maxwell end?

CLINTON: I don't think I've seen her in a decade. It's been a long time. I don't know exactly when.

[...]

QUESTION: Do you have any recollection of what year it would've ended?

CLINTON: No, but when she was with Ted Waitt, she was— When we were kicking off [the Clinton Global Initiative], she was very interested in that and she participated, but I don't remember—I don't know. It's been ten, twelve years since I saw her. I don't remember when the last time was.

There's much more if you're interested. As best we can tell, he wasn't asked about the "allegation" with which Watters had managed to close the previous day's pathetic imitation of life. 

As for the former "wrestler," let the word go forth to the nations! Yesterday, he was presented to the world two times, first on The Five and then, five hours later, on Gutfeld! 

Uh-oh! During his smirking filibuster on The Five, it almost seemed he thought that the two Clintons had been present at the same time for a joint deposition. During his smirking on the Gutfeld! show, it seemed clear that that's what this big blowhard thought. 

It was all tied to his flyweight rumination about why Hillary Clinton became angry at one point during Thursday's event. All in all, it couldn't have been much dumber, though he may be willing to try.

That said, the misogyny-adjacent behavior is endless on these "cable news" shows. So it goes when Fox lets the dogs out each night, with every news org in Blue America agreeing to avert its gaze.

The sheer stupidity of these programs is their primary calling card. But especially on the Gutfeld! show, the truly astonishing ugliness also comes rushing in.

That ugly conduct was part of the surroundings last week as we approached our current war. Consider what that program's host said on last Thursday's program.

With apologies, a bit of background is required:

Unfortunately, Rosie O'Donnell's adult daughter, Chelsea O'Donnell, has been experiencing some legal problems related to addiction issues. 

Most news orgs have behaved in an appropriate way. In the manner which has become the trademark of the Gutfeld! show, the program's host decided to give the world this right at the start of last Thursday's program:

GUTFELD (2/26/26): Rosie O'Donnell's daughter Chelsea has been accused of assault after touching a man's genitals. 

Apparently, she never learned boundaries growing up watching farmers milk her mom.

It was one of his opening "jokes." He had joked about the same topic the night before, in a slightly less astonishing way.

When does a society decide it's time for conduct like this to go? In the matter of this "cable news" channel, this peculiar person's pathetic behavior has been enabled by Blue America every step of the way.

Please don't ask us to chronicle the endless ugliness of this primetime "cable news" program. "Jokes" about Rashida Tlaib's hairy face have been frequent in the past two weeks, as is the reliable norm.

(The ladies of the Fox News Channel just sit there as if nothing is happening. So do all the highly principled columnists at the New York Times.)

Last night, Obama was from Kenya again. Fox rolls this garbage can out each night. Blue America looks away.

The war began late Friday night. In the case of these "cable news" programs, it would be hard to chronicle the full extent of the gruesome surroundings.

Tomorrow: We no longer talk about this

WEDNESDAY: Denmark decides to give it a try!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2026

The stigma of "mental illness:" Is this country currently dealing with an unfortunate but dangerous situation involving some form of "mental illness?" 

Last Thursday night, on CNN, Mary L. Trump said yes. Back in 2020, she had offered similar thoughts about a presidential candidate in her best-selling family memoir, Too Much and Never Enough.

Before that, back in 2017, the Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee had edited a collection of essays in which, correctly or otherwise, various medical specialists addressed the same set of concerns. Her book was a best-seller too. Her thumbnail reads like this:

Bandy X. Lee

Bandy Xenobia Lee is an American psychiatrist whose scholarly work includes a textbook on violence. She is a specialist in public health approaches to violence prevention who consulted with the World Health Organization and initiated reforms at New York's Rikers Island Correctional Facility. She helped draft the United Nations chapter on "Violence Against Children" leads a project group for the WHO's Violence Prevention Alliance, and has contributed to prison reform in the United States and around the world. She taught at Yale School of Medicine and Yale Law School from 2003 to 2020.

Unfortunately, yes! In 2020, she ended up losing her position at Yale. Wisely or otherwise, Dr. Lee had been breaking the rules.

The rules still say that issues of mental illness, disorder or health may not be brought across the borders which limit the reach of the American political discourse. Journalists have religiously followed that rule ever since (roughly) the 1960s, except during brief periods when the MSM decided they wanted to question the mental health of Candidate Al Gore.

(In such ways, they managed to drag Candidate Bush across the finish line. That story has never been told by major mainstream orgs, because that's the way games are played.)

Just a guess! It's largely the stigma associated with "mental illness" that has helped keep that rule firmly in place. Presumably, that stigma also lies behind this reported change in preferred language in this arena, as reported by the leading authority on such terminology:

Mental disorder

A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness, a mental health condition, or a psychiatric disability, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. A mental disorder is also characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior, often in a social context. Such disturbances may occur as single episodes, may be persistent, or may be relapsing–remitting. There are many different types of mental disorders, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders. A mental disorder is one aspect of mental health.

[....]

Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder," while "illness" is also common. It has been noted that using the term "mental" (i.e., of the mind) is not necessarily meant to imply separateness from the brain or body. 

And so on, at enormous length from there.

Stigma is as stigma does, Mother Gump always said—and in the area of "mental illness," stigma can do great harm. For that reason, one of those annoying Euro nations has undertaken a program described by the New York Times in a lengthy report which carries this dual headline:

A Danish Program Takes On the Stigma of Mental Illness
One of Us, run by Denmark’s health ministry, works with people with mental health conditions to share their stories in schools, hospitals and police stations, helping turn fear into understanding.

In his report, Simar Bajaj uses a variety of terms—mental illness, mental disorders, mental health challenges. He mainly deals with people suffering from the ravages of schizophrenia—people who understand, acknowledge and know that, through no fault of their own, they're afflicted with a very difficult mental health condition and challenge.

One such person is Giuseppe Parlatore. Here's part of his role in Denmark's undertaking:

For years after he was diagnosed in 2009, Mr. Parlatore, 42, felt like schizophrenia had swallowed him up, leaving him “more or less a vegetable,” he said. But he has worked hard to manage the voices he hears—making deals, setting boundaries—and to carve out a life beyond his illness.

Today he is one of Denmark’s leading mental health advocates, working with the country’s top health officials to change how the public sees mental illness.

This government initiative, called One of Us, works with people who have mental health challenges—the program calls them ambassadors—to share their stories in schools, hospitals and police stations, with a focus on their recovery.

Why would Parlatore be sharing his story in police stations? Hopefully, so police officers can learn better ways of dealing with the occasional situation in which some person may be responding to their interventions in ways they don't understand and may mistakenly see as threatening.

None of this directly relates to the situation Mary Trump and Bandy X. Lee have said we're currently facing. For today, we'll leave you with a supposition:

People who are "mentally ill" (OldSpeak) didn't choose to be so afflicted. 

Some such people know they have a serious "illness" with which they must learn to deal. Depending on the specific condition in question, many other afflicted people one hundred percent do not.

"No people are uninteresting," the poet once said. He gave it voice all the way down.

SURROUNDINGS: On Friday night, Joe Biden spoke!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2026

A few hours later, it started: As the midnight hour approached last night, there he went again. 

As of last Friday, he had made the final decision—the war in Iran would proceed. Last evening, as midnight drew near, he was now "truthing" this: 

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better - As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought “forever,” and very successfully, using just these supplies (which are better than other countries finest arms!). At the highest end, we have a good supply, but are not where we want to be. Much additional high grade weaponry is stored for us in outlying countries. Sleepy Joe Biden spent all of his time, and our Country’s money, GIVING everything to P.T. Barnum (Zelenskyy!) of Ukraine - Hundreds of Billions of Dollars worth - And, while he gave so much of the super high end away (FREE!), he didn’t bother to replace it. Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP 

The angry name-calling never ends in the course of the president's "truthing." 

To us, the name-calling seems astoundingly childish; some others find it "refreshing." It is, of course, their perfect right to assess this matter that

Yesterday, we floated several questions about the person at issue. For starters:

Is this the person you would have chosen to be the ultimate decision-maker with respect to a matter like this? 

That was one of the questions we floated. We also floated questions and concerns about the array of medical syndromes which are still often described as "mental illness"—about the array of medical conditions which may affect a person's intellectual and emotional capacities in ways which may be harmful. 

Do people choose to be so challenged? (Do people who are "mentally ill" choose to be "mentally ill?") We're going to guess that they don't. But "mental illness" is a condition we moderns have little ability to discuss. 

This leads us back to events and conditions surrounding this president as the decision in question was made. 

Last Thursday evening, the onset of the current war was a bit more than one day away. As happenstance had it, a pair of events took place on Thursday and Friday nights. They were part of this war's surroundings. 

We've been discussing the first event since last Saturday's report For better or worse, correctly or otherwise, the president's clinical therapist niece went on CNN last Thursday and offered the kind of assessment which has long been disappeared. 

By the rules of the Blue American game, you haven't been allowed to voice such thoughts, even as a worrying possibility. Those rules had held for the past nine years, but there Mary Trump went again:

ERIN BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a [cognitive] decline?

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

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

The fact that she said it doesn't mean that it's true. On the other hand, the fact that such ruminations have been forbidden doesn't mean that the musings are wrong. 

As happenstance had it, Mary Trump went on CNN and said that last Thursday night. (CNN offered no subsequent disclaimers for allowing this to be said.) As happenstance had it, that rumination was part of the surroundings as the war with Iran approached. 

One night later, a very important public figure made a set of statements in South Carolina—statements which, like Mary Trump's rumination on CNN, were almost completely ignored all through the rest of the discourse.

That major figure was President Bidem, President Trump's immediate predecessor. Tommy Christopher cited his comments in a report at Mediaite. 

Except for Christopher's report, we don't think we would have known about this event at all:

Biden Taunts Trump In New Speech: ‘I Handed Trump The Strongest Economy In The World!’

Former President Joe Biden taunted President Donald Trump over jobs and the economy, comparing their jobs records and declaring “I handed Trump the strongest economy in the world!”

At 2:30 AM Saturday, Trump posted an announcement that the United States was in the process of attacking Iran in a video message from Mar-a-lago, attacks that would dominate the news Saturday.

Hours before the attacks, Biden gave a speech to the South Carolina Democratic Party to commemorate the anniversary of his win in the state’s pivotal primary in 2020.

The war was hours away as President Biden spoke. As Christopher's report continued, he transcribed some of what the former president had said, with videotape included:

BIDEN (2/27/26): When I was president, we created over 16 million jobs in America. We had the lowest average unemployment rate in 50 years.

In fact, in just my last year as president of the United States in 2024, we created, just the last year, 2.2 million additional jobs.

You know how many jobs Trump’s created in his first year as president? 185,000 jobs! Total! That's it! 

Of course, it shouldn’t be a surprise. Trump’s the only president, other than Herbert Hoover, who had fewer jobs when he left office than when he came into office. That’s a fact!

[...]

The day I left office, border crossings in the United States were lower than the day that I entered that office, inherited from Trump. He is—I won’t say it. 

(LAUGHTER).

That’s just a fact.

The day I left office, I handed Trump the strongest economy in the world! In the world! That’s not hyperbole, that is a fact! 

So said the former president. For better or worse (opinions differ), the start of the war was mere hours away.

President Biden's accurate statements about the economy were part of the surroundings in the wake of last week's State of the Union address—but only if you read the New York Times, or if you receive your information from other parts of Blue American media. 

If you watch the Fox News Channel, you almost surely never heard the long list of accurate fact-checks about President Trump's inaccurate claims about the nation's economy. 

Red Americans weren't asked to hear about the sitting president's latest howlers. These are the wages of separation—of "segregation by viewpoint." 

With respect to that nation's economy, Blue Americans were allowed to hear the facts. Red Americans were not.

Having said that, we must also say this—what President Biden said about the border was, in fact, factually accurate but grossly misleading. There the former president went again, refusing to explain:

The day I left office, border crossings in the United States were lower than the day that I entered that office, inherited from Trump. He is—I won’t say it.

(LAUGHTER).

That’s just a fact.

"That's just a fact," he said, after the audience laughed. As far as we know, it's a technically accurate statement of fact—but that accurate statement continues a politically counterproductive evasion, one which is grossly misleading.

Palmetto State Democrats, please! The question about President Biden's performance at the southern border concerns the first three-plus years of his term in office. It doesn't concern what happened in the second half of his final year, when some policy changes were made.

Over at the Fox News Channel, deep in the heart of Red America, viewers never heard about all the absurd misstatements the sitting president made in his State of the Union address. They do hear all sorts of statements, many of which may even be accurate, about the policy the previous president maintained at the southern border.

Over here in Blue America, the situation is different. We get to hear about the sitting president's wide assortment of misstatements about the economy. Like the denizens of Red America, we still haven't heard an explanation of President Biden's unusual border policy—and what he said, to that laughing crowd, was the latest evasion.

Messengers at the Fox News Channel still live off President Biden's unexplained border policy. They refer to that matter all day long. Their statements are often basically accurate, even if the large numbers they cite may tend to be made up.

Red Americans hear about that; Blue American media tends to avert its gaze. In such ways, two large groups of American voters come to understand the world in vastly different ways.

Mary Trump spoke on Thursday night. One night later, so did President Biden. Their statements were part of the cultural surroundings as the war with Iran drew near.

As of last night, the decision-maker compared Zelensky to P. T. Barnum. People, we're just saying!

Tomorrow: In our view, astounding misconduct

TUESDAY: A banner headline in the Post...

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2026

...brought a question to mind: Just this once, we're going to let you ask us about "mental illness."

Rather, about what used to be called "mental illness." According to the leading authority on the topic, the use of that term is falling into something which sounds like disfavor, with the term "mental disorder" now being used instead. 

Quoting from the leading authority: 

Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder," while "illness" is also common. It has been noted that using the term "mental" (i.e., of the mind) is not necessarily meant to imply separateness from the brain or body. 

Just this once, we're going to let you ask us. Rather, we find ourselves with a question for you. 

Our question was triggered, mere moments ago, by this banner headline atop the front page of the Washington Post's website:

U.S. closes three gulf embassies as Iran widens strikes

That's the banner at the Post, even as we type. Before we get to the question we're going to ask, we're going to make these admissions:

The decision to attack Iran was made by the sitting president. For the record, we have no way of knowing how this military action will, in the end, turn out.

We don't know where this war will take us. We don't know how it will come to be viewed in the future. 

Having made those admissions, we ask you this:

Was it wise to let the person in question be the decision-maker? Was it wise to do so without ever rescinding the ban on discussing the possibility that he has been, and still is, afflicted with some significant set of medical challenges / disorders?

Was it wise to maintain the code of silence around that possibility? In our view, there's no obvious answer to that question, given the difficulty we modern Americans would have had in discussing that particular topic.

At any rate, there sits the banner headline. Was it wise when our own Blue American orgs kept telling us this:

Nothing to look at or talk about! Just keep moving along!

SURROUNDINGS: Hegseth spilled with tribal anger!

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2026

The segregation we've chosen: Yesterday morning, at 8 o'clock Eastern, Secretary Hegseth briefed the nation along with General Caine. As usual, he was annoyed by the sheer stupidity of the Lilliputians by whom he was surrounded. 

Six minutes into the Q-and-A session, General Caine answered a perfectly sensible question. It concerned a report that additional troops were being sent into the theater. 

That Q-and-A was perfectly sensible on both ends. Now, the secretary's rabbit ears had him responding to a different question.

How long was this military action likely to be? The question had been shouted out without being formally recognized, but Secretary Hegseth had heard it:

HEGSETH (3/2/26): I heard the question about "four weeks." It's the typical NBC sort of gotcha type question. 

President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take. Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks—it could move up, it could move back. We're going to execute, at his command, the objectives we've set out to achieve. And what he has shown ability to do, that other presidents can't quite seem to have the aperture to do—well, I mean, Joe Biden didn't even know what he was doing—is to look for opportunities and off ramps and escalations for the United States that creates new opportunities to execute what we need on our own timeline.

So you can play games about "four weeks, five weeks." He has all the latitude. And I'm glad he does, because there's no better communicator than our president expressing those things.

I've been in meetings with the president for the last two and a half days. We know exactly where his head space is, and he will communicate, as he should, exactly what he would like, and we will follow those orders. And I think everything he said on that is right down the middle. 

Whatever his possible merits might be, Hegseth is a bit of a hothead. In the current instance, his rabbit ears had heard a reporter "playing games" by trying to ask a "typical NBC gotcha type question." 

Also, under current rules of the tribal game, there could be no presser without a statement about what a dumbass former president Joe Biden had been. 

Hegseth is routinely peeved with the sheer stupidity of the others. Two minutes later, there he went again:

REPORTER: Secretary Hegseth, and one for Chairman Caine as well. I understand to your point here, that you don't want to broadcast everything for our adversaries to hear, but the American people also want to know what they're sending their men and women to war for. Is there a concern of this spiraling into a longer war? And then one for the chairman when you're done.

HEGSETH: Did you not hear my remarks? I mean, we're ensuring the mission gets accomplished, but we are very clear-eyed, as the president has been, unlike other presidents, about the foolish policies of the past that recklessly pulled us in, the things that were not tethered to actual clear objectives. 

So we know we have plans, we have generals, we have chairmans, we have commanders, CENTCOM commanders, Admiral Cooper, who's executing very deliberately to ensure outcomes that I laid out are accomplished. But we would never, in front of a press pool, lay out how long that may take. The mission for our war fighters, which is what matters to us, is very, very clear and they're executing it right now, violently. 

Why can't these idiots listen? Once again, the fellow was peeved.

In fairness, Hegseth's answer makes basic sense. What's striking is the hostility with which he delivered his answer—and the constant denigration of the "foolish policies of the past" advanced by those dumb other presidents.

Unlike the calm and professional General Caine, Secretary Hegseth is a bit of a hothead. He has the revolutionary fervor which can arise in the surroundings from which he emerged at the Fox News Channel.

Hegseth was working as co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend when President-elect Trump selected him to serve as Secretary of Defense. As such, Hegseth was deeply entrenched within the modern array of American "news orgs" built upon the principle of "segregation by viewpoint."

We now have Cable News Red and Cable News Blue, with CNN still trying to find some way to maintain some sort of tribal balance. Under current arrangements, the war fighters of our major "cable news" channels are kept separate, Red from Blue.

Rarely the twain shall meet. Unfortunately, the angry certainty voiced by Hegseth is part of the siloed segregation we've unwisely chosen

As is routine on the Fox News Channel, so too in Hegseth's remarks! To this day, it's rare to see participants expound on Fox News Channel programs without someone making mocking remarks about the dumbness of President Biden. Beyond that, the presumed bad faith and stupidity of Blue America is a constant part of the diet the Red American viewer is served. 

As usual, Hegseth was peeved with the NBC style gotcha questions at yesterday's press event. As usual, he broke from entrenched tradition, taking unsolicited shots at the foolish policies of the dumbbell presidents of the past.

This steady drumbeat of tribal attack is now a basic part of American journalistic culture. Luckily, Hegseth does know where the current president's "head space" is. He's also quite sure that "there's no better communicator than our president," and that everything that president has said "is right down the middle." 

In fairness, journalists sometimes do ask redundant questions. Also, the policies of past presidents have almost surely fallen short of some Platonic ideal. 

That said, an unsettling question about the sitting president arose on CNN just last Thursday night.  

Does Mary L. Trump have any idea what the heck she's talking about? For ourselves, we'd guess that she almost certainly does—but whether she does or whether she doesn't, this is again what she said:

ERIN BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a [cognitive] decline?

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

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

Say what? The doctorate-wielding clinical therapist said she sees a cognitive decline in her uncle, the sitting president. But she also said what she initially said in her best-selling 2020 book, Too Much and Never Enough:

She said her uncle "is somebody who for decades now has had serious, undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric disorders, which are only going to worsen." Last week, that very same sitting president launched a war against Iran. 

President Trump has launched a war against Iran. Opinions on the undertaking differ.

Yesterday, on the Fox News Channel's Will Cain Show, (retired) General Jack Keane offered a fascinating account of the past forty-plus years, expressing the view that the president's decision is long overdue. 

"Stop patronizing me," he gruffly told his host at one point, as Cain attempted to offer the standard thanks for the general's service.

General Keane apologized to Cain when the segment ended, but Cain's search for greater clarity about the actual goals of this mission had triggered a fascinating cable news segment. We'll recommend that you watch the full videotape, as offered by Mediaite. 

Even inside Silo Red, denunciations of the president's decision are now being heard. (Questions are even being asked, as Cain did this day.)

The current structure of American discourse has rarely produced disagreements within a tribe. Hegseth's views were never challenged by the other friends on Fox & Friends Weekend. Within this culture of viewpoint segregation, Hegseth's brand of angry certainty is likely to arise and take hold.

As we speak, the president has propelled us into a war which has perhaps been somewhat poorly explained. All week, we'll try to describe the surroundings of that fateful decision, including the anger and the tribal certainty exhibited by players like Hegseth.

For today, we'll offer one clear thought about the cultural practices surrounding the president's decision. That on clear thought would be this:

Twenty-four hour "cable news" has turned out be to be an extremely bad idea.

We'll also float this additional thought: 

We Blue Americans aren't as flawless as we occasionally may believe. 

Mary Trump has emerged again with what should be a troubling thought about the man she's known her whole life. From 2017 right through to today, Blue America's journalists and academics have agreed that a medical possibility of this type must not be discussed. 

We're left today with the possibility that the fateful decision to launch this war was made by a man afflicted with the unfortunate but dangerous medical conditions Mary Trump has described. When Dr. Bandy X. Lee offered similar thoughts in 2017, her own best-selling book got disappeared by the Blue American press, and she ended up losing her position at Yale.

We apologize for today's jumble—for the lack of one simple pure thought. We apologize for this grab bag of surroundings, but for those who are willing to stare into the sun, there are quite a few more surroundings to come.

Tomorrow: Joe Biden's recent speech?

MONDAY: Music critic in Amsterdam!

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2026

Young music lover revealed: There was once a person who read a three-volume biographer of a famous composer and ended up writing this:

Everyone in the Annex except Mr. van Daan and Peter has read the Hungarian Rhapsody trilogy, a biography of the composer, piano virtuoso and child prodigy Franz Liszt. It's very interesting, though in my opinion there's a bit too much emphasis on women; Liszt was not only the greatest and most famous pianist of his time, he was also the biggest womanizer, even at the age of seventy. He had an affair with Countess Marie d' Agoult, Princess Carolyne Sayn-Wittgenstein, the dancer Lola Montez, the pianist Agnes Kingworth, the pianist Sophie Menter, the Circassian princess Olga Janina, Baroness Olga Meyen- dorff, actress Lilla what's-her-name, etc., etc., and there's no end to it. Those parts of the book dealing with music and the other arts are much more interesting... 

Yes, it's true! The writer was Anne Frank, then age 14, not long thereafter lost to the world thanks to the madness of that world, not long before the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. 

Anthony Tommasini, the former chief classical music critic of The New York Times, remembered this matter in a labor of love in yesterday's print editions of the Times. Dual headline included:

In the Secret Annex, Anne Frank’s Radio and a Love for Classical Music
Her diary overflows with her devotion to books and movies. But after rereading the entries, a critic was struck by how often she writes about music.

[...]

In June 1944, three days before she turned 15, and two months before the annex was raided and everyone arrested—of the group, Otto Frank, Anne’s father, would be the only survivor of the camps—Anne wrote enthusiastically about “Hungarian Rhapsody,” a three-volume biography of Franz Liszt that she had just finished reading. “Its very interesting, though in my opinion there’s a bit too much emphasis on women,” she says about Liszt’s prodigious womanizing. But she was captivated by the parts “dealing with music and the other arts,” stories of Schumann, Clara Wieck, Berlioz, Chopin, Victor Hugo, Anton Rubinstein, Rossini and Mendelssohn.

It's true! There was once a reader of that three-volume biography who preferred the parts about the music! Continuing directly, Tommasini offers this:

There is a poignant entry from April 1944 when Anne bonds over Mozart with Peter, the van Pels’s teenage son. Peter, almost three years older than Anne, did not make a good first impression on her. She found him “a shy, awkward boy whose company won’t amount to much.” Those feelings took root. Peter was lazy, obnoxious, “a dope” and “no one takes Peter seriously,” she wrote. Eighteen months of annex confinement changed her feelings; Peter’s too. They became smitten and, with grudging parental indulgence, spent private time together in the attic of the annex. Peter gave Anne her first kiss.

One day, they were in the attic listening to a Mozart concert on the “baby radio,” as Anne called a portable set. She was especially struck by the serenade for strings “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.” “I can hardly bear to listen in the kitchen,” she wrote, “since beautiful music stirs me to the very depths of my soul.”

Lost the world at age 15, thanks to the surrounding madness, with Peter van Pels lost too. Tommasini's rumination about his recent trip to Amsterdam continues:

The adolescent Anne’s growing immersion in classical music amid unimaginable hardships and daily fears preoccupied me during this trip to Amsterdam. Besides fulfilling a lifelong wish to visit the Anne Frank House, I went to concerts by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and the Netherlands Philharmonic, both at the acoustically marvelous Concertgebouw hall, built in the late 19th century. Anne, I thought, would have loved these performances.

It’s unlikely, though, that she ever made it to an orchestra program at the Concertgebouw. By 1941, when she was 11, Jews were barred from theaters of all kinds, along with libraries, museums, parks and more. By 13, she was in hiding. 

If you missed Tommasini rumination, you might want to consult it today. Amazingly, there were people who risked their lives, not just to provide their neighbors with food, but also to bring them books:

"Our meals consist almost entirely of potatoes and imitation gravy,” Anne wrote in her diary one day in 1944. But even during periods when food has hard to procure, the people risking their lives to provide for and shelter these hidden Jews—all employees of Otto’s pectin, spice and jam business—were able to bring them books: used books, library books, their own books, which were eagerly passed around.

Tommasini had "reread Anne Frank’s extraordinary diary before" his trip to Amsterdam. He "had somehow forgotten how regularly she brings up classical music."

We ourselves remain indebted to Francine Prose for her 2009 book, Anne Frank: The Book, the Life, the Afterlife, which vastly deepened our understanding of this remarkable episode in our human history.

As happenstance had it, Anne Frank happened to be a precocious child; Prose felt she had never received her due as a brilliant developing writer. Prose also tells the antique myth adjacent story of how Anne Frank's diary, and her other writings, escaped the fate of being lost at the time of her family's arrest. 

It's a story right out of antiquity, as Prose correctly notes.

SURROUNDINGS: The president made the fateful decision!

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2026

But what were the surroundings? Last Friday night, we happened to sit up, awake, at roughly 1:30 a.m. On all three major "cable news" channels, the attack was already underway.

In Blue America, the decision to attack Iran has largely been challenged. In Red America, the assessments have generally been quite different. Indeed, consider this:

Twenty-four hours into this war, at 1:15 on Sunday morning, we saw a remarkably upbeat claim asserted once again.

Even at that late hour, the Fox News Channel was broadcasting live, with Jon Scott in the anchor chair. He spoke with Matt Terrill, introduced as former chief of staff to Marco Rubio's presidential campaign.

For the record, Secretary Rubio's presidential campaign ended in 2016. By way of contrast, Terrill's upbeat assessment of President Trump's decision was thoroughly up-to-date:

Here's what Terrill said:

SCOTT (3/1/26): [Secretary Rubio] was supposed to go to the Middle East this Tuesday. Do you think that that was a kind of a ruse? That the Iranians figured that they wouldn't have—that they wouldn't be seeing this kind of attack until at least after the secretary of state departed the region?

TERRILL: Well, Jon, is it possible that that was a head fake? Potentially! I'll let the administration speak to that. But this is a president, and Secretary Rubio, and an administration in general, that's playing four-dimensional chess...

The president's playing four-dimensional chess? So said the upbeat Terrill, on Red America's official news channel.

As you may recall, Joey Jones had offered a similar assessment, on the Fox News Channel's Big Weekend Show, just one week before:

JONES (2/21/26): You know, [the Democrats] play this game that's— They're not very good at it, I don't think.

President Trump is smarter than they are. He's playing checkers, they're playing— or, He's playing chess, they're playing checkers.

Jones had said that one week earlier. Now, the sitting president was said to be playing chess again—and there's no way to prove that that's wrong.

Has President Trump been playing chess while others are playing checkers? It hasn't always looked that way to us! For starters, consider the banner headline across the top of the front page of this morning's New York Times:

U.S. TROOPS KILLED AS BLASTS JOLT MIDEAST; FEAR OF WIDER WAR AFTER IRAN’S RESPONSE
Trump Says He’s Willing to Talk to Tehran’s New Leadership

Say what? The president has said that he's willing to talk to Iran's new leaders?

Indeed, the president told The Atlantic, on Sunday night, that he's willing to return to negotiations! He had just killed forty of the Iranian regime's previous leaders—and now he was willing to talk to whoever's left!

Rightly or wrongly, that almost seemed a bit odd to us. It didn't exactly seem to make sense, although we could always be wrong. 

Then too, Jonathan Karl has now tweeted this:

Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl

Pres Trump told me [on Sunday night] the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.

"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."

Just our luck! The president had replacements in mind for the post of Supreme Leader. But in the course of his first attack, he managed to kill the top three!

In fairness, things like that can happen. But even before the attack commenced, the president had oddly described the magic or secret words he was longing to hear.

Once again, we offer Jonathan Karl, reporting what the president said to a group of network news anchors during a preview of last Tuesday's State of the Union address. You can see Karl make his report at this report by The Wrap:

KARL (2/24/26): One notable thing, we did talk about Iran. He said that "Iran wants a deal more than I do," but they just can’t say the magic words, which he said was that they won’t build a bomb.

They just can’t say the magic words! But was that a direct quote?

We aren't completely sure about that. But that evening, in the address itself, the president used a slightly different term of art:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (2/24/26): They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America. After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, in particular nuclear weapons, yet they continue. They’re starting it all over.

We wiped it out, and they want to start over again, and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal but we haven’t heard those secret words: “We will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Again, the president said he'd never heard those magic or secret words. But did that seem to make sense?

Hasn't the regime in Iran always said that it doesn't seek to have nuclear weapons? And since no one believes what the regime's leaders say, what difference would it have made if he had heard those secret or magic words—if the Iranians had made that pledge?

For ourselves, we don't hear four-dimensional chess being played by this president. In fairness, that doesn't prove that he has made the wrong decision with respect to this war. It doesn't tell us what history will say about this war, if history as we've always known it will continue to exist.

For ourselves, we don't have confidence in this president's judgment, which doesn't mean that his judgment was wrong in this case. In part, we lack confidence in his judgment because we find it easy to believe what his niece said, on CNN, just last Thursday night.

In Saturday's report, we showed you what she said. We know of no obvious reason to assume that her assessment is wrong, which doesn't prove that it's right:

ERIN BURNETT (2/26/26): You've known him your whole life. Do you actually see a [cognitive] decline?

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

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

The fact that she said it doesn't mean that it's true. But his niece, the doctorate-wielding clinical therapist, said she sees a cognitive decline layered on top of life-long "psychiatric disorders."

Within this political context, we vastly prefer the term "medical." But a sitting president was making a very important decision even as that was being said. 

We don't know how the president's decision will turn out. We do know certain things about the decision's surroundings.

What do we mean when we refer to the decision's "surroundings?" We're speaking about the rapidly crashing national culture within which that perilous decision was finally made:

We're thinking of his niece's statement last Thursday night. We're thinking of a speech President Biden made, in South Carolina, on that very same evening.

We're thinking of the moral and intellectual squalor which suffused the Fox News Channel in the weeks leading to that decision. We're thinking of the refusal of Blue America's major news organs to report and discus that astonishing level of journalistic disorder.

We're thinking of the ludicrous state into which the State of the Union had fallen as of last Tuesday night. We're thinking of the need to builds a culture war out of a (very good) hockey game.

We're thinking of this opinion piece by Alex Griffing of Mediate—an opinion piece in which Griffing examines the type of serious policy issue we Americans no longer discuss. We're thinking of the way CNN and the Fox News Channel spent the weeks leading up to this war talking about almost nothing except a (tragic) missing person case concerning which nothing was known.

We're thinking of the crazy claims this president won't stop making. We're thinking of the crazy things he routinely posts on his Truth Social site, very late at night.

We're thinking of his birther years. We're thinking of the southern border during the Biden years, and of what was said about it—including by President Biden himself, just this past Thursday night.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our rapidly failing American culture is an embarrassment and a danger. The decision emerged from these gruesome surroundings. We Blues are a part of that too!

Tomorrow: We'll probably have to start right there