WEDNESDAY: "Unrecognizable" lands in the Times!

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2026

Also, return of the whales: For some reason, the New York Times republished the article in yesterday's print editions, right on page A2. 

Originally, it seems to have appeared all the way back on February 5. Yesterday morning, the report by Dan Barry was back! Headline included, it started like this:

TIMES INSIDER
How Do You Write About a Slur?

In reporting on the resurgence of a word long regarded as a slur, we faced a challenge: Could we write about the inappropriate term—employed recently by, among others, the president of the United States—without using it?

Even here, in this Times Insider piece exploring that challenge, we again face a difficult question. How do we write about writing about a word that should be avoided?

The word is “retarded,” and it has been understood to be a slur against people with intellectual disabilities for nearly two generations. This is not news.

What is news is that after a steady decline in its usage, following a national campaign and federal legislation, the word has made a defiant comeback in some circles, in part because of its use by people of prominence. 

We're not sure we would have regarded the word in question as "a slur." That said, we certainly would never have used the word in question as an insultand, like almost everyone else, we knew that other formulations were now regarded as less insulting, less hurtful.  

Based on three or four years of watching the Fox News Channel, we've also learned that certain people enjoy the practice of dishing such insults and using such words. A familiar name was there in the list when Barry named some recent users: 

(continuing directly)
In recent months the word has been resurrected by Elon Musk, the musician Kid Rock and the Fox News personality Greg Gutfeld. In a post on Truth Social in November, President Trump called Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota “seriously retarded,” and last month Harmeet K. Dhillon, the official overseeing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, used “retards” in a social media post. I found this particularly striking, since the division’s responsibilities include protecting the rights of people with disabilities.

I have occasionally written about intellectual disabilities... I remember the word being bandied about in the schoolyards of my childhood in the early 1970s, particularly by bullies. Even then, many children avoided it; too hurtful. 

Even then, children in Iowa avoided the term. Today, on Fox, not so much!

Barry continued along from therebut sure enough, Greg Gutfeld was listed among the practitioners. Incredibly, Barry even ended up writing this about an earlier report about this same topic: 

We then sat down to write, only to grapple with a few challenges: When, how and how often should we use the word in a piece exploring its power to offend?

We did not want to simply paraphrase what Mr. Trump or Ms. Dhillon had written. We also quoted the podcaster Joe Rogan and Kid Rock to demonstrate the seemingly gleeful celebration of the word’s resurgence in some quarters. Mr. Rogan declared the word’s return “one of the great culture victories.” 

Say what? Joe Rogan once declared the word's resurgence to be “one of the great culture victories?" As a courtesy, we're going to assume that whatever it is he actually said, he had somehow been misunderstood. 

Sadly, also this: 

There are few ways to give offense which aren't actively relished by Gutfeld, who we regard as one the genuine "Unrecognizables" of the modern incel-adjacent, "conservative insult" era. 

For whatever reason, his desire to insult liberal women is one of the impulses he's sent out to satisfy each night at 10 o'clock Eastern. His gruesome loathing of women seems to be obviousand sure enough:

Last Friday night, during his handful of opening jokes, there he went again

GUTFELD (3/27/26): Finally, a forty-foot whale washed up on a New York beach. 

Don't worry, though. The whale's next-of-kin have already been notified.

PHOTO: The women of The View

AUDIENCE: Laughter, hooting, applause 

In recent weeks, we've told you it seemed that he had been told to surrender this pitiful nightly pleasure. Last Friday night, the pleasure was backand then, on Monday night, he decided to do it again:

GUTFELD (3/30/26): To aid the war effort in the gulf, the U.S. is considering sending SEAL Team 6. 

And if that doesn't work, they might even send in Whale Team 4.

PHOTO: The women of The View

AUDIENCE: Applause, cheering 

Suzanne Scott sends him out to do this every night. To our ear, the cheering rings out like a fire bell in the night. 

For the record, there is no insulting premise too stupid or too tired to please this kumquat's audience. In particular, there is no way to reassert male dominance that his tortured mind won't employ.

It isn't just the nightly return to braindead comparisons of the women of The View to horses and cows, to hippos and pigs, and to whales and generic "livestock." It's also the inane jokes about that time of the month, about the way women (and Asian-Americans) don't know how to drive, about how boring women's sports are, and even to pathetic displays like this

GUTFELD (3/30/26): Bill Maher is getting the Mark Twain Award for humor. 

Big deal! I'm getting the Shania Twain Award for being most likely to bang Shania Twain.

Sad! The next joke was the joke about the 40-foot whale.

(To his credit, he has stopped asking if Hunter Biden has started "banging" or "[BLEEP]ing" his mother, first lady Jill Biden. Back in 2024, we saw him go there three separate times. Producers let the word "banging" slither through, bleeped the more challenging term.)

He still likes to say that Taylor Swift is only a 5 or a 6. (Sad!) In such ways, a 61-year-old man who could apparently use some help is determined to set an ugly, stupid, braindead example for younger men of assorted ages. In fairness, the pay is good.

Final point:

High-end Blue America has completely accepted the braindead insults this fellow directs at women. Among our various tribal shortcomings, we Blues don't have a recognizable sexual politics, and we never have.


HEALTH: Is something wrong with the president's health?

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2026

Cognition v. "mental illness:" This morning, it has come to this, in this most rapidly changing of all possible worlds.  

The person whose health has been in question has granted an interview to The Telegraph's Connor Stringer. Dual headline included, this is the way the Stringer report begins: 

Trump interview: I am strongly considering pulling out of Nato
Exclusive: US president tells The Telegraph alliance is a ‘paper tiger’ and claims UK does not even have a navy

Donald Trump has told The Telegraph he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of Nato after it failed to join his war on Iran.

The US president labelled the alliance a “paper tiger” and said removing America from the defence treaty was now “beyond reconsideration”.

It is the strongest sign yet that the White House no longer regards Europe as a reliable defence partner following the rejection of Mr Trump’s demand that allies send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Mr Trump was asked if he would reconsider the US’s membership of Nato after the conflict.

He replied: “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”

He and Vlad are on the same page, as is frequently true. As an aside, we'll mention the fact that there exists in the psychological literature a variety of writings about the so-called "Samson Syndrome"alternatively, "Samson's Complex"which you can find described if you simply google around.

At any rate there the president went, threatening to walk out on NATO. Meanwhile, is there some such thing as a British Navy? The leading authority on the subject still seems to think that some entity called "The Royal Navy" continues to exist

Royal Navy

The Royal Navy (RN) is the naval warfare force of the United Kingdom, responsible for defending the UK, the Crown Dependencies, and the Overseas Territories from naval attack or invasion. It is a component of His Majesty's Naval Service, and its officers hold their commissions from the King. 

[...]

The Royal Navy maintains a fleet of technologically sophisticated ships, submarines, and aircraft, including two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines (which carry the Trident strategic nuclear weapons), six Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, six Type 45 guided missile destroyers, seven Type 23 frigates, eight mine-countermeasure vessels and twenty-six patrol vessels. As of December 2025, there are 63 active and commissioned ships (including submarines as well as one historic ship, HMS Victory) in the Royal Navy, plus 9 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). There are also four Point-class sealift ships from the Merchant Navy available to the RFA under a private finance initiative, while the civilian Marine Services operate auxiliary vessels which further support the Royal Navy in various capacities. The RFA replenishes Royal Navy warships at sea and, since 2024–25, provides the lead elements of the Royal Navy's amphibious warfare capabilities through its three Bay-class landing ship vessels. It also works as a force multiplier for the Royal Navy, often doing patrols that frigates used to do. However, most of the Royal Navy ships are not actually in a condition for deployment at sea due to lack of seaworthiness. That led the navy to borrow the German frigate Sachsen for a NATO mission in spring 2026. The situation was described by the media and politicians as a national embarrassment.

Presumably, the situation was described that way by some in the media and by some politicians. Aside from that, we're going to let the experts puzzle these matters outthe question of the Samson Syndrome, along with the challenged existence, and state of repair, of the Royal Navy itself. 

For today, NATO is a paper tiger, the sitting president has saidand he has said that Vladimir Putin knows that too. For that reason, the sitting president may pull the United States out of NATOsomething he apparently isn't legally entitled to do. 

How simpler things seemed to be last Thursday when, at a televised "cabinet meeting," the president rambled on, for almost five minutes, speaking about the price of a good Sharpie pen.

"It's insane. It's insane," S. E. Cupp said that evening on CNN. Other observers have discussed that day's five-minute ramble about the Sharpies, included MS NOW's Katy Tur and that same channel's Lawrence O'Donnell. 

O'Donnell discussed the president's Sharpie monologue on last Thursday evening's edition of The Last Word. You can watch the tape of O'Donnell's analysis by clicking this link to the videotape provided by the program's web site.

What did O'Donnell say that night? As you'll see if you click that link, the web site offers this two-part thumbnail: 

Lawrence: Trump failed his own self-administered cognitive test while Iran’s regime was watching
MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell describes the Donald Trump the Iranian regime saw today: a wartime president fixated on cognitive tests, presidential pens and Sharpies while nodding off during a Cabinet meeting about war.

In his monologue that evening, O'Donnell discussed the Sharpies too. But before he did, he discussed the president's latest claim about the so-called cognitive tests he has long claimed that he just keeps "acing."  

Over the past six years, the president has repeatedly said that he has aced those challenging cognitive tests in a way few others have ever done. As transcribed by Tommy Christopher at Mediaite, here's part of what he said at last Thursday's cabinet meeting:

I’m the only president that ever took a cognitive test. I took it three times. It’s actually a very hard test for a lot of people. It wasn’t hard for me. But it’s a cognitive test. It starts off with an easy question. And by the time you get to the middle, it gets tougher. By the time you get to the end, very few people can answer those questions. They get very tough mathematical equations and things.

I took it three times. I aced it all three times in front of numerous doctors that I have no idea who they are. And I was told when I went in—they said Dr. Ronnie told me this. My current doctors are fantastic doctors. They said, “Well, if you take it—you know, it’s Walter Reed. It’s essentially a public hospital. And if you do badly, he’s probably going to get out.” But I aced it. I got them all right. And one doctor said, “I’ve never seen anybody get them all right. I’ve been doing the test for twenty years.”

Plainly, nothing can make the sitting president desist from making these claims!

As many others had done before him, O'Donnell ridiculed those claims on last Thursday's evening's program. He then proceeded to mock the president's lengthy discussion of Sharpies. 

As noted above, O'Donnell said the president had "failed his own cognitive test" in his pair of rambles at that day's "cabinet meeting." (We can't really tell you that O'Donnell's suggestion is wrong.)

Last night, at 10:10 p.m., O'Donnell seemed to take a different tack, describing the president as "a madman." (O'Donnell, speaking of the president's apparent current strategy in Iran: "That is how a madman wages war in the 21st century.") 

Out of that aggressive language an important question is born, along with an observation about our American journalism as it's currently practiced:

Back in the simpler days of last week, some observers seemed to be suggesting that the president is suffering some sort of cognitive challenge. On this campus, we have no way of knowing if that's true, but that's what some discussions seemed to suggest. 

Other discussions seemed to suggest something different. Those discussions seemed to suggest the presence of what might be called "mental illness." 

In those discussions, words like "insane" and "madman" began to surface again. Not long before, on March 19, MS NOW's Chris Hayes had said this:

"Every once in a while, you just have to remind yourself the president of the United States is a sociopath." 

That would seem to be a claim about (severe) "mental illness." Around that same time, one of the president's former lawyers had described him as "a demented narcissist" in yet another MS NOW appearance.

O'Donnell has often referred to the president as "delusional." Last night, he went with "madman," then alleged that the president had engaged in "pathological lying" again.

"Madman" isn't a clinical term. At present, neither is "sociopath." Having said that, we'll add his:

Based on the language they used, some of these observers seemed to be alleging some sort of cognitive shortfall. But based on the language other observers used, those observed seemed to be suggesting that the "madman / insane / sociopath" sitting president is afflicted with some version of (significant) "mental illness."

In the Babel of our flailing discourse, various suggestions have been voiced by an array of high-profile observers. We'll leave you today with this observation:

None of those people are medical specialists! Their claims and suggestions could always be accurate, but there's no obvious reason to assume that they actually know what they're talking about.

You've heard us say this before. Our news orgs have all signed on to a sacred pacta sacred pact which goes like this: 

We will never speak to the medical specialists who, at least as a matter of theory, might have some basic idea what they're talking about!

Is the president suffering a cognitive shortfall? Might he be afflicted with some substantial "mental illness?"

Our journalists and our attorneys bring no expertise to such questions. Meanwhile, what has one trained clinical therapist recently said about all this?  As we continue to seek the president's health, we return to that question tomorrow.

The president wants to exit NATO. Is some sort of medical problem possibly lurking there?

Tomorrow: The clinical therapist's tale

Friday: Colby Hall's intriguing opinion piece


TUESDAY: Is Adam Smith allowed to say that?

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026

What the congressman said: Adam Smith appeared as a guest on Fox News Sunday last weekend. 

We refer to Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), a Democrat from the state of Washington. In our view, he tends to be smart and sane. 

He serves as Ranking Member of (as top Democrat on) the House Armed Services Committee. It was in that capacity that he appeared on Fox News Sunday with its anchor, Shannon Bream, who has sometimes also been caught being both smart and sane. 

Bream isn't the standard Fox News Channel messenger person. On Sunday, she and Smith had a lengthy discussion about the current partial government shutdown.

In the main, we aren't concerned today with the shape of that longer discussion. Along the way, Smith surprised us with something he actually said. We join that discussion in progress:

BREAM (3/29/26): If you [Democrats] all want to change ICE policy, why not fund everyone as these bills were already agreed to? There was a bipartisan agreement on these bills. They hit this block in the Senate after they'd already been part of a bipartisan negotiation.

SMITH: Yes! They hit the block in the Senate after two American citizens were killed in Minneapolis, without any accountability!

BREAM: Which is a tragedy, but there are Americans tooRachel Morin, Jocelyn NungarayI mean, those are Americans who have been killed too.

SMITH: We have a legitimate debate to be had over how to do immigration enforcement. And by the way, I agree with Senator Cotton [an earlier guest]. The Biden administration did not do immigration enforcement the way it should have. We should have the border more secure than it was. But there's plenty of room between that policy, between the "radical left" policy you keep talking aboutyou know, open borders and all of thatand having masked, unidentifiable ICE agents show up, no probable cause, no due process, killing two people, warrantless searches of peoples' homes, detaining people without any due process. Can't we get somewhere in between in those two extremes? 

And so on from there. 

You're looking at part of a longer discussion. We're mainly concerned with these highlighted statements by Smith: 

The Biden administration did not do immigration enforcement the way it should have. We should have the border more secure than it was. 

We think we may have heard some major Democrat making some such statements before. But we're not totally sure that we have.

The handling of the southern border under President Biden remains the political gift which keeps on giving to purveyors of agitprop inside Silo Red. It's always there for Red American messengers to mention and fall back on. 

To the best of our knowledge, the handling of the southern border under President Biden remains unexplained to this day. Smith has at least acknowledged a fact what will seem to be obvious to tens of millions of voters: 

Absent some future explanation, the first three-plus years of border policy under President Biden are very hard to affirm. It seems to us that Smith had the right idea in admitting that this unexplained policy matter went wrong. 

A final point: 

Who were Rachel Morin and Jocelyn Nungaray?  Every Fox News Channel viewer will know. Some Blue Americans may not.

In our view, we Blues have promulgated some slippery evasions regarding the way they (and others) were sexually assaulted and murdered in recent years. Jocelyn Nungaray was only 12 years old at the time of her vicious killing by a pair of assailants. 

In our view, attention should have been paid by Blues as well as by Reds.

We Blues may be inclined to cling to our tribal dodges. It's a very human thing to do, but as we try to shape the future, we think it's a bad idea.


HEALTH: Tur was also concerned by the Sharpies!

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026

No specialists need apply: As we noted yesterday, the president held a televised "cabinet meeting" last Thursday. 

That evening, CNN's Erin Burnett was concerned. Her program, Erin Burnett OutFront, starts at 7 p.m. That evening, she started like this:  

BURNETT (3/26/26) Out front next, breaking news: 

Iran with a new threat against U.S. troops as Trump reportedly weighs new military options to seize Iranian land.

Also breaking: Are TSA lines about to finally get shorter? An announcement just in that could make a major difference at airports across the country tonight.

And why did President Trump spend five minutes talking about Sharpies today? Is this what Americans want? Let's go OUTFRONT. 

With respect to the cabinet meeting, he had her (concerned) with the Sharpies! Granted, it wasn't the first piece of breaking news that night. But the Sharpies were out front as Burnett opened her show. 

As we noted yesterday, Burnett called upon S. E. Cupp to help her discuss the five minutes the president spent on the Sharpies. Cupp was concerned about that matter too. As we noted yesterday, here's part of what she said: 

CUPP: Listen, the truth is, most voters are not watching these insane cabinet meetings. We have the pleasure of having to do that, and they are insane. 

And if you watch them, that's one, one of several moments that are just kind of nutso. If you watch them, you have to seriously question Trump's stability. 

"It's insane. It's insane," she later said. "It could get people killed." 

In fairness, it wasn't clear, at that later point, what Cupp was actually talking about. 

Was she talking about the president's conduct? Or was she talking about "the groveling, the flattery" of the cabinet members"the North Korea coded kind of attitude you have to have in this White House?" 

At that point, it wasn't clear what was insane. As we noted yesterday, the segment ended with this:

CUPP: He hasn't even told the American public why were in Iran, when we're going to get out, what to expect. He hasn't conditioned us to know what's about to happen. And he's rambling for four minutes about Sharpies. It's embarrassing. 

BURNETT: Four minutes and 56 seconds, to be exact. 

Linguistically, "embarrassing" seems less troubling than "insane." But along the way, Cupp had made this statement about the "nutso moments" from that day's televised event:

You have to seriously question Trump's stability. 

You have to (seriously) question the president's stability, Cupp had plainly said. But does anyone have a clear idea what she meant by that? 

During the program, Burnett played a brief chunk of videotape from the president's five-minute ramble. Later, People magazine presented a lengthy report about the ramble, including extensive excerpts of what the president had actually said.  

(Headline: Trump Rambles About Sharpie Pens for 5 Straight Minutes During High-Level Cabinet Meeting amid Iran War. To read that report, just click here. Lengthy quotations from Trump included!)

To appearances, Burnett was concerned about what she had seen when the president went on that extensive side trip. But please note what she and her producers did: 

They didn't book a medical specialist to discuss what the president's conduct might mean. Instead, they booked a political commentatorand when that commentator voiced concern about the president's "stability," Burnett made no attempt to ask her what she might mean. 

So it goes as our major journalists tiptoe on eggshells, pretending to discuss such points. Plainly, Burnett and Cupp thought there was something to be concerned about in the president's five-minute discussion of Sharpiesbut then again, so did MS NOW's Katy Tur.

Yesterday afternoon, Tur devoted a segment to the same topic on her two-hour afternoon program, Katy Tur Reports. In our view, Tur is thoroughly sharp. 

At Mediate, Alex Griffing published a detailed report about what Tur now said. Headline included, his report, with videotape included, started off like this

‘Is Donald Trump Well?’ MS NOW’s Katy Tur Does Deep Dive on President’s Mental Acuity 

MS NOW anchor Katy Tur asked her viewers on Monday if President Donald Trump is still mentally fit, taking a deep dive into polls showing a growing number of Americans are starting to ask the question.

“Is Donald Trump well? Is his head in the presidency? Does he have the mental acuity to lead this country?” Tur began to kick off the segment, adding:

"More people are starting to doubt that—beyond, of course, Democrats who have always doubted it. "

Soon, Tur was focusing on the Sharpies monologue. Specifically, she was asking about the president's "mental acuity," just as that headline said. 

Tur was concerned by that five-minute ramble too! In our view, that concern is perfectly reasonableis quite important, in fact.

That said, Tur didn't bring anyone on her show to evaluate what the president said. After playing extensive tape of his comments about the Sharpiesafter listing various claims by the president which had apparently turned out to be falseTur simply expressed her own concern in the manner shown: 

TUR (3/30/26): While a lot of this has always just been part of who Donald Trump is—a man who works the room, seeks attention, seeks applause—he’s now about to be 80 years old, and he’s launched a war that he does not seem to have a plan for. 

Based upon the highlighted statement, it seemed that Tur was voicing concern about a familiar type of cognitive decline. We refer to the type of decline which will often occurbut which often doesn't occurwhen people reached an advanced age.   

Might something be wrong with the sitting president? Is it possible that he is experiencing a cognitive decline of a fairly familiar type? Is there reason to question his stability, whatever that might? 

Also, is it possible that he's "insane," whatever that might mean? Was that merely colloquial speech on Cupp's part, or did Cupp mean something specific by that choice of wods? 

Quite a few journalists and news orgs have called attention to the apparent oddness of the president's ramble about Sharpies last week. As far as we know, none of them have interviewed medical specialists about their alleged points of concern. 

None have spoken to medical specialists about their concern! We'll leave you today with this question: 

How sincere a concern is that? 

On this sprawling campus, we're conducting a search for the president's health. That said, we're also conducting a maddening search for intelligent American journalism. 

Should journos be speaking to medical specialists? Or are interviews with other cable figures "close enough for journalistic work?"

Tomorrow: Cognitive decline v. "mental illness"

Still coming: The intriguing essay which carried this headline:
OPINION
We’ve Stopped Noticing That Trump’s Cabinet Meetings Are Completely Insane 

MONDAY: We didn't want to leave Friday behind!

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2026

Truth beauty, beauty truth: "Truth is beauty, beauty truth?" Or was it the other way around? 

We couldn't quite remember! We've never ingested the poem in question, but that bromide has been banging around inside our heads over the past few days. 

Today, we finally googled it up. There Keats had gone again, at the end of a famous ode, addressing some ancient pottery:

Ode on a Grecian Urn 

[...]  

When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
 "Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all
 Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

That's the way the poem ends. Aside from its famous bromide, we wouldn't necessarily recommend it. 

Truth is beauty, beauty truth? The misordered saying had been banging around in our heads because of what we got to write about on Friday afternoon, after spending some time down at the medical mission. 

We had taken two books along to combat the hours of sitting around. As we noted in Friday afternoon's report, the two books in our satchel were these: 

Mary L. Trump
Too Much and Never Enough 
Simon & Schuster, 2020
Francine Prose
Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife
HarperCollins, 2009

Until that very day, it hadn't occurred to us that there's a type of connection between those two books. The connection is lodged in the first thing Prose includes in her endlessly fascinating book. 

Prose starts with something John Berryman wrote about Anne Frank's extremely famous book way back in 1967:

I would call the subject of Anne Frank’s Diary even more mysterious and fundamental than St. Augustine’s, and describe it as the conversion of a child into a person…. 

In fact, each of the books we scanned that day involve "the conversion of a child into a person"or perhaps, the way that conversion may fail to occur in the case of the unfortunate child who is raised in a profoundly unhelpful way. 

Mary Trump's book describes the disordered upbringing of her uncle, starting at age 2 and a half. There is also a passing mention of the fact that certain kinds of (serious) "personality disorders" can be inheritedcan be passed along right there in the genes.

Mary Trump describes a tragically disordered upbringing. As Prose describes Anne Frank's upbringing, she describes something quite different. 

On Friday, we posted a pair of anecdotes from Prose's book. We didn't want to post on Saturday morningdidn't want to leave those captured moments behind.

Before the madness arrived, the one child was receiving what you'd hope every child would receive. In Mary Frank's detailed account, the other child was receiving a vastly different type of experience.

You can almost imagine that the results are there for all to see. Pity the child, we've said

We didn't want to post again on Saturday morning. We wanted to stay where we were.

We wanted to stay with that extremely famous, sacred childwith the developing, cherished young person before the madness arrived. Truth is beauty, beauty truth, Prose's book always seems to say.

HEALTH: We're launching a search for the president's health!

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2026

And for what that familiar term means: Last Thursday afternoon, the sitting president convened one of his televised "cabinet meetings."  

We employ scare quotes there because these televised events are unlike the classic cabinet meetings of the American past. That evening, on CNN's Erin Burnett Outfront, Burnett asked S. E. Cupp to comment on this latest event.

Meanwhile, who is S. E. Supp? Burnett introduced her on this occasion as "former Republican strategist, now podcast and television host S. E. Cupp." 

The leading authority on Cupp's career as a political commentator offers this somewhat dated overview:  

S. E. Cupp 

Sarah Elizabeth Cupp (born February 23, 1979) is an American television host, political commentator, and writer. In August 2017, she began hosting S. E. Cupp: Unfiltered, a political panel show, co-hosted by Andrew Levy, on HLN and later CNN.

She is a former panelist on the CNN political debate show Crossfire, author of Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity and co-author of Why You're Wrong About the Right. She was a co-host of the MSNBC talk show The Cycle...

[...]  

Throughout her career, Cupp has described herself as a "mainstream conservative" and a supporter of "limited government, self-reliance, self-empowerment, lower taxes." ... 

Cupp was strongly critical of Donald Trump's [first term] presidency, saying "I don't know these Republicans [that support Trump]. This isn't what drew me to this party." She voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election. 

So it had gone with Cupp as of 2020. Now she was discussing the president's latest "cabinet meeting." In part, she offered this:

CUPP (3/26/26): Listen, the truth is, most voters are not watching these insane cabinet meetings. We have the pleasure of having to do that, and they are insane. 

And if you watch them, that's one, one of several moments that are just kind of nutso. If you watch them, you have to seriously question Trump's stability.

She described the televised events as "kind of nutso," insane. Most strikingly, she said the televised events raise serious questions about the sitting president's "stability."

That was one observer's instant assessment of the day's event. Later, Cupp added this commentary on the cabinet members, but also concerning the president himself:

CUPP: This is the cost of being in Trump's orbit. Pam Bondi unfurled a banner at DOJ with Trump's face on it to suck up to him. Rick Grenell put Trump's name on the Kennedy Center to suck up to him. He's now gone.

I mean, it's really humiliating. The groveling, the flattery, the North Korea coded kind of attitude you have to have in this White House and news breaking today, he's going to put his name on our money. I mean, this is just humiliating for a great nation like ours.

I just think we are looking increasingly like a North Korea, you know, like a hermit nation where you just have to tell the president what he wants to hear. I hear they're showing him videos of things blowing up in Iran. Like that's his security briefing. 

It's insane. It's insane. It could get people killed. But just at the basic level, this is not America as we know.

[...]

He hasn't even told the American public why were in Iran, when we're going to get out, what to expect. He hasn't conditioned us to know what's about to happen. And he's rambling for four minutes about Sharpies. It's embarrassing. 

BURNETT: Four minutes and 56 seconds, to be exact.

That was one (1) observer's assessment. For whatever it may be worth, the word "insane" kept sliding in as Cupp assessed that day's "North Korea coded" event. 

That said, also this:

That was Cupp's first mention of the Sharpies. Right at the start of the show, Burnett had beaten her to it.

Burnett had explicitly teased the president's discussion of the Sharpies in the CNN program's first minute. Later, she mentioned the Sharpies again as she teased the upcoming segment with Cupp:

("Why did President Trump spend nearly five minutes today talking about Sharpies while America is at war?")

Say what? Had the president really spent five minutes discussing Sharpies at the "cabinet meeting?" As shown above, Burnett timed the president's rambling discussion at "four minutes and 56 seconds, to be exact." 

Plainly, Burnett thought this discussion had been strange. Cupp seemed to think it was part of what made her question the president's "stability."

So it went inside much of Silo Blue in the wake of the "cabinet meeting." Cupp made liberal use od the word "insane." Earlier, a headline in Mediaite had used that same word, except a bit more so. 

The opinion piece at Mediate had been written by Colby Hall, one of the site's founding editors. The headline atop Hall's opinion piece said this:  

OPINION
We’ve Stopped Noticing That Trump’s Cabinet Meetings Are Completely Insane 

In the headline, the president's cabinet meetings were said to be completely insane. In the body of his piece, Hall quickly mentioned the Sharpies, along with a few other somewhat peculiar "subjects covered by the President of the United States at Thursday’s cabinet meeting."

The headline called the meeting insanecompletely insane at that. Somewhat oddly, the word "insane" doesn't appear in the body of Hall's essay. 

Still, an obvious question might have seemed to arise in Hall's piece. It seems like a very important question:

Was Hall suggesting that something may be wrong, in a serious, significant or dangerous way, with the president's "mental health?"

Was Hall suggesting something like that? We'll examine his essay tomorrow. For today, we'll close with this:

On a conceptual basis, physical illness is easy. On a conceptual basis, so-called "mental illness" is hard. 

Our struggling society, such as it is, operates with a very limited set of understandings about the nature of "mental illness." Also, our news orgs have long agreed that questions of mental health must never arise in discussions of major political figures.

That was always a very good ruleuntil the time came when it wasn't.

Is it possible that our sitting president is struggling with (serious) mental health issues? How well do we understand what that claim might even mean?

Today, we start down a long and winding road in pursuit of those plainly important questions. Is something wrong with the president's "stability"with the president's health? As a nation, shouldn't we possibly be trying to puzzle that out?

As a society, we're looking at this question through a glass extremely darkly. Like all people, the president deserves to be in good healthbut what is the actual situation on this very day?

Tomorrow: Hall seemed to voice a major complainta complaint about the press