WEDNESDAY: As a tribute to waterfront values...

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2026

...Chekhov concocted this tale: The creepy monsters who creep and crawl have been crawling all over the modern American discourse. 

Can a large modern nation hope to survive in such desperate need of true, sustaining values?  Can some such nation hope to survive with the standard assembly of soul-damaged creeps sent out on that "cable news" channel? 

We'd expected to post this afternoon about this latest astounding behavior by the flailing American president. But instead, we'll offer Constance Garnett's influential early translation of Chekhov's spectacularly beautiful story, The Lady with the Lapdog.

Here on this campus, we prefer the David Magarshack translation for Penguin Classics. But we offer this start to the story as a tribute to the Redford character in The Horse Whisperer, and as a tribute to the way Terry and Edie create a world of better values in the undercard to On the Waterfront.

The American songbook asks this question: Who will glove your hand? In this famous scene, Terry answers that question. 

Chekhov's story starts as shown:

The Lady with the Dog  
(Constance Garnett translation)  

It was said that a new person had appeared on the sea-front: a lady with a little dog. Dmitri Dmitritch Gurov, who had by then been a fortnight at Yalta, and so was fairly at home there, had begun to take an interest in new arrivals. Sitting in Verney's pavilion, he saw, walking on the sea-front, a fair-haired young lady of medium height, wearing a béret; a white Pomeranian dog was running behind her.

And afterwards he met her in the public gardens and in the square several times a day. She was walking alone, always wearing the same béret, and always with the same white dog; no one knew who she was, and every one called her simply "the lady with the dog."

"If she is here alone without a husband or friends, it wouldn't be amiss to make her acquaintance," Gurov reflected.

He was under forty, but he had a daughter already twelve years old, and two sons at school. He had been married young, when he was a student in his second year, and by now his wife seemed half as old again as he. She was a tall, erect woman with dark eyebrows, staid and dignified, and, as she said of herself, intellectual. She read a great deal, used phonetic spelling, called her husband, not Dmitri, but Dimitri, and he secretly considered her unintelligent, narrow, inelegant, was afraid of her, and did not like to be at home. He had begun being unfaithful to her long ago—had been unfaithful to her often, and, probably on that account, he almost always spoke ill of women, and when they were talked about in his presence, used to call them "the lower race."

It seemed to him that he had been so schooled by bitter experience that he might call them what he liked, and yet he could not get on for two days together without "the lower race." In the society of men he was bored and not himself, with them he was cold and uncommunicative; but when he was in the company of women he felt free, and knew what to say to them and how to behave; and he was at ease with them even when he was silent. In his appearance, in his character, in his whole nature, there was something attractive and elusive which allured women and disposed them in his favour; he knew that, and some force seemed to draw him, too, to them.

Experience often repeated, truly bitter experience, had taught him long ago that with decent people, especially Moscow people—always slow to move and irresolute—every intimacy, which at first so agreeably diversifies life and appears a light and charming adventure, inevitably grows into a regular problem of extreme intricacy, and in the long run the situation becomes unbearable. But at every fresh meeting with an interesting woman this experience seemed to slip out of his memory, and he was eager for life, and everything seemed simple and amusing.

One evening he was dining in the gardens, and the lady in the béret came up slowly to take the next table...   

The beauty of where this story goes is truly a thing to see. 

In its time, this story was considered revolutionary for its ending—for the ending which didn't provide an ending.  Virginia Woolf wrote about the unusual ending. Nabokov called Chekhov's story one of the greatest ever written. 

We've loved this story for years. 

If we expect to survive as a nation, we have to remove the misogynist creeps from the American discourse. We also have to ask the question we've asked many times here at this site, the question about the trusted Blue American elites who refuse to report or discuss the misogyny crawling all over the Fox News Channel.

"We don't have a person to waste (Bill Clinton)." Nor do we have a whole gender,

The Magarshack translation: Writing for Penguin Classics, David Magarshack translated the opening in the manner shown:   

Lady with Lapdog
(David Marshack translation)

The appearance on the front of a new arrival—a lady with a lapdog—became the topic of general conversation...[S]he was fair, not very tall, and she wore a toque; behind her trotted a white Pomeranian. 

[...] 

And so one afternoon, while he was having dinner at a restaurant in the park, the woman in the toque walked in unhurriedly and took a seat at the table next to him...  

We have to drive the creeps from the American discourse. They deserve to get help after that.


HAPPINESS: It's not my place, Brother Maher said!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2026

We'd call that egregiously wrong: No, that wasn't happiness that sacred Thoreau was describing at that point in his most famous book. At the start of the chapter called Solitude, he was describing something else: 

Solitude

This is a delicious evening, when the whole body is one sense, and imbibes delight through every pore...Sympathy with the fluttering alder and poplar leaves almost takes away my breath...

For a fuller chunk of that opening passage, see yesterday's report. To read the opening paragraph in full, you can just click here. 

Was that Thoreau as an ecstatic? We've reported, you can decide! But as every American schoolchild knows, he was reporting from a hut he himself had assembled—a hut he'd assembled near Don Junior Pond, which was once weirdly known known as "Walden."   

At any rate, he wasn't describing "happiness." We may get to that later on. 

Last evening, for millions of viewers of one "cable news" channel, the congenial nature of all the elements was quickly replaced with the opening monologue on the Gutfeld! show.   

The untreated mutt who fronts the show offered a joke suggesting that Barack Obama is secretly gay—a constant theme on this stone-cold nut-ball's gruesome show. 

(Kat Timpf just sits there watching.)

"I don't get it," Gutfeld said, as the audience laughed and applauded. "Don't get that one at all."

Gutfeld routinely ducks behind such disclaimers as he degrades the American world with his grimy suggestions. Believe it or not, his previous joke seemed to be pushing the theme that Obama had or has some sort of problem with birth certificate matters!

His first joke dealt with the zipper on Bill Clinton's pants, which remained open on Columbus Day. Thirty years later, untreated people like Greg Gutfeld can't seem to move on from there.  

This garbage can soils the American landscape every weekday night. Over the weekend, the Washington Post had offered this report on a familiar complaint by the sitting president:   

Trump fumes at ‘stain’ on Norway after missing out on Nobel Peace Prize

President Donald Trump has reacted angrily to missing out on the Nobel Peace Prize, disparaging the winner and describing the decision as an “indelible stain” on Norway.

Speaking at a rally in Syracuse, New York, Friday evening, Trump described this year’s winner of the prestigious prize, leading jurist and former U.N. human rights chief Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, as a “mystery person” he had never heard of, and said: “We will not forget, Norway, that you didn’t give this prize.” He followed up with social media posts on Friday and Saturday that criticized the award committee’s decision.

[...]

In his Friday night tirade against the Nobel Peace Prize result, which lasted about 10 minutes, Trump said he “should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but didn’t. … This is an indelible stain on the country of Norway and those people that made such an disgraceful and embarrassing decision.” 

You read that correctly! Speaking at what was supposed to be a campaign rally, the president spent roughly ten minutes complaining that he'd been snubbed again. 

Judged by any conventional standard, his complaints were weirdly overwrought. As the Post's report continued, it also noted this:  

In posts on Truth Social late Friday and early Saturday, Trump, who is waging war against Iran, also said he “should have won 8 Nobel Peace Prizes” because he “settled 8 Wars” and was “about to settle, or win, two more, Iran and, Russia/Ukraine.”

In reality, some of the eight conflicts Trump claims to have settled have continued. Others were ended largely by others. 

All in all, whatever! He should have won eight Nobel Prizes, the overwrought person said. 

And yes, he went on for ten minutes! Is something "wrong" with this powerful man?

What should we think about this sort of thing? As we noted yesterday, in a new Club Random episode, Bill Maher, who we greatly admire, chose to say this about that:   

Bill Maher Is Dining With Trump Again Because He’s a Willing Dupe

Bill Maher is heading to the White House to meet with Donald Trump again partly because, in Maher’s words, “he was like, really nice.”

The last time the ostensibly liberal Maher made the pilgrimage to D.C. to meet with Trump, he indignantly lashed out at those who criticized him for doing so. Speaking on HBO’s Real Time after the summit in April 2025, Maher noted that Trump has been engaging in a “trade war and disappearing people, ruling by decree, threatening judges, gutting the government with glee.”

But despite these actions, which Maher himself said he is disturbed by, Trump still managed to impress him.

“Trump was gracious and measured,” Maher told his audience at the time. “And why he isn’t that in other settings, I don’t know and I can’t answer and it’s not my place to answer.” 

Why does the president do the various things he does? Bill said he doesn't know. 

Meanwhile, Bill Maher, please! He even said it isn't his place to answer that question. To our ear, he almost seemed to be saying that it isn't his place even to try to come up with an answer.  

In our view, that was egregiously wrong.   

Just a guess! We'll guess that almost everyone knows the unfortunate general answer to the question Bill posed. Beyond that, we think it's Bill's responsibility—he's a citizen, after all—to try to come up with an answer.  

Tomorrow: A wide refusal to serve


TUESDAY: Welker wastes the nation's time!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2026

Brain cells under attack: Let's go with an easy one as we attempt to return to full services. 

Last weekend, in her full interview with Abdul el-Sayed for Meet the Press, Kristen Welker journeyed down an extremely tired old road  

Friends, let nip it in the bud! At the end of the 32-minute unedited session—this portion didn't actually air—Welker went with this:

WELKER: OK. Let's finish by talking about 2028 and looking ahead a little bit...  

Uh-oh! People who own TV sets could already see it coming! 

"Could we just get through 2026," El-Sayed helplessly asked.  

Inevitably, the answer was going to be no. Welker soon went with this:

WELKER: Finally, last question. Do you think that America is ready for a Muslim president?

EL-SAYED: That's not a question I'm asking. I think Michigan is ready for a Muslim senator.  

If only she'd ended the foofaw right there! But under eternal rule of the guild, this manifest foolishness followed:

WELKER (continuing directly): But do you think America is ready for a Muslim president?

EL-SAYED: That's irrelevant. I think Michigan is ready for a Muslim senator.

WELKER: OK. But you don’t rule out the possibility that—

EL-SAYED: I have no intention of ever running for president. That is not a thing I've ever wanted to do...  

El-Sayed was forced to continue the ritual from there. We thought of all the years in which time-killing TV hosts tormented the late Bill Richardson with cloying questions of this familiar type.   

Kristen Welker is smarter than this! But plainly, they can't help themselves. These pointless questions must be asked. It's one of the guild's oldest rules. 


HAPPINESS: Maybe by the end of the week!

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2026

First, though, INABILITIES: Say what? Shine on me, sunshine? Walk with me, world?

In our view, it was a good way to start a song. Sacred Thoreau was in a similar place when he penned the following words on the shore of Concord's famous Barron Pond. 

It's the start of the fifth chapter in his famous book, Barron. For the original text, click here:

Solitude

This is a delicious evening, when the whole body is one sense, and imbibes delight through every pore. I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself. As I walk along the stony shore of the pond in my shirt sleeves, though it is cool as well as cloudy and windy, and I see nothing special to attract me, all the elements are unusually congenial to me. The bullfrogs trump to usher in the night, and the note of the whippoorwill is borne on the rippling wind from over the water. Sympathy with the fluttering alder and poplar leaves almost takes away my breath...

The writer felt "sympathy with the poplar leaves!" This is widely viewed as an excellent place to be.

But also, "Shine on me, sunshine / Walk with me, world!"  In our view, it was a beautiful way to start a song—a song which went to #1 on the country charts in 1972. We heard it again on the road back from Durham, years ago, after watching a certain second grader take part in a schoolwide spelling bee. At the time, she was the greatest kid in the world, tied with her younger sister, who was also the world's greatest kid.

We'll refresh you on the song by the end of the week. But also, we'll offer some thoughts on its relevance.

(At one time, the pond was known as Walden Pond. We've linked you to Thoreau's original text, which did include the word "trump.")

That song was a portrait of happiness. First, though, a different focus. First, we'll look at the inabilities which currently put us in danger.

We'll start today with an aggressive challenge to Bill Maher. It's voiced in an opinion piece by Mediaite's Michel Luciano.

As readers know—as we've often said—we've always admired Bill's enormous achievement. Today, though, Luciano can be spotted offering this, unflattering headline included:

Bill Maher Is Dining With Trump Again Because He’s a Willing Dupe

Bill Maher is heading to the White House to meet with Donald Trump again partly because, in Maher’s words, “he was like, really nice.”

The last time the ostensibly liberal Maher made the pilgrimage to D.C. to meet with Trump, he indignantly lashed out at those who criticized him for doing so. Speaking on HBO’s Real Time after the summit in April 2025, Maher noted that Trump has been engaging in a “trade war and disappearing people, ruling by decree, threatening judges, gutting the government with glee.”

But despite these actions, which Maher himself said he is disturbed by, Trump still managed to impress him.

“Trump was gracious and measured,” Maher told his audience at the time. “And why he isn’t that in other settings, I don’t know and I can’t answer and it’s not my place to answer.”

And so on from there. Now for a bit of background:

Last week, during a Club Random chat, Bill said that the president has offered another dining invitation and that he's going to take it. At some length, Luciano says that Bill is wrong to do that.  He says that Bill is making himself "a willing dupe of a malevolent president."

We can't necessarily say that Luciano is wrong. For ourselves, we're going to focus on this part of Bill's statement from last year:

“Trump was gracious and measured,” Maher told his audience at the time. “And why he isn’t that in other settings, I don’t know and I can’t answer and it’s not my place to answer.”  

In our view, Bill was flat-out wrong about that—though also, stone-cold wrong. In our view, it is his place to try to answer that deeply consequential question. We'd even say it's been his responsibility to try to fashion an answer.

Why does the sitting president do the things he does? It's too late to avoid the disasters which may follow November's mid-term elections. But Bill was saying he doesn't know, and that "it's not his place to answer." 

We're in awe of what Bill has achieved. But we'll call that spectacularly wrong.  

We'll discuss INABILITIES all week long. Tomorrow, we'll start right there, with that.   

Tomorrow: What, him interview a specialist?


VALUES: Brother Maher's aim was true!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2026

His remarks on the treatment of persons: Bill Maher is Cornell's most televised living graduate, surpassing even Ann Coulter. 

At times, we've been puzzled by Bill's recent commentaries, but we thought his aim was generally true with respect to the disgraceful, appalling recent news from his disgraced alma mater.  

Sean James reported Bill's remarks for Mediaite; he provides full videotape. Headline included, his report starts as shown:   

Bill Maher Calls for Abolishing Frats Amid Cornell 7 Saga: A Gentleman ‘Doesn’t Exploit the Woman, He Saves Her’

Bill Maher said it’s impossible to know what exactly happened in the “Cornell 7” case, but the saga has made one thing crystal clear to him: fraternities need to be abolished ASAP.

The veteran comic weighed in on the alleged gang rape during the Friday episode of Real Time. Maher closed the show by saying the details of the case are sordid and hazy, but whether it was a gang rape or group sex doesn’t change his mind—frats have got to go.   

"Any place that’s all male, no girls allowed, just doesn’t function without depravity. Just ask the Catholic Church,” Maher said. “Ask the Taliban.” 

He continued, “Everything that’s inherently bad about men gets worse if you put them in a fraternity. The drinking gets worse, the cruelty, the treatment of women, the tribalism, the peer pressure, one-upmanship, conformity, segregation, nepotism, bullying, elitism...

We're not experts on fraternities. Also, we'd use more nuanced language than Bill uses when he says that there are things that are "inherently bad about men." 

(Later, saying that colleges should also get rid of sororities, he makes the same sweeping claim about women.)

That said, Bill's general aim was true. As we noted several times last week, our human race badly needs "the girl." 

It needs Edie Doyle to help Terry Malloy struggle with issues of conscience—to expose him to instincts which may be better than some of his own may be. It also needs people like the Robert Redford character—men who know enough to respect the decency of the world's good, decent girls and young women. 

The world gains when people like Bill speak up. Here's more of what Bill said:   

In this case, a young woman made a bad decision, as 20-year-olds do, when she went to a frat house drunk and did Ketamine. And for that, she claims to have paid a price no woman should have to pay.

No one was there [or] knows what happened, but I do know what a "gentleman" is. A "gentleman," gentlemen, is someone who in that situation doesn’t exploit the woman, he saves her. That's a gentleman.   

For the record, Bill was using the term "gentleman" as a way of mocking the way the word is used in the mission statements of many fraternities. He was really saying that any person should step in to help a young person who is being assaulted after making a bad decision—as young people often do.

Good for Bill! We wish he'd also said this:    

Does anyone think the men and women who run schools like Cornell haven't been complicit in tolerating the destructive behavior described in the recent reports? And how about the people who send Greg Gutfeld and a panel of stooges out on the air, night after night, to teach young men that they should continue along with the ugliest and stupidest forms of the age-old loathing of women and girls?

How about those horrible people? Who's going to save us from them? Also, how about the horrible people, all over Blue American journalism, who refuse to report and discuss what happens on Fox every night?

We've named some of their names before. Who's going to save us—our women and girls, our boys and young men—from the horrible conduct of them?

Tomorrow: Full services alleged to return