STORIES: A "Christmas film" tells a political tale!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2024

Why Fox News [HEART] Die Hard: We haven't seen A Complete Unknown, but we can answer a question about the new film.

The question, which is perfectly sensible, appears in this review by Khari Taylor:

[This] brings me to A Complete Unknown’s biggest problem as a dramatic biopic: it's extremely light on conflict and fails to explain the larger stakes for a modern audience, one far removed from Dylan’s youthful era (including my middle-aged self). For instance, why was it so crucial to the American folk movement that Dylan remain a strictly acoustic singer and not “go electric?” What made acoustic folk so sacrosanct that electrically amplified instruments couldn’t be used? Why was it considered so controversial for Dylan to perform as a lead singer in a “rock band” rather than as a solo folk singer?

A Complete Unknown never provides answers to these questions, instead assuming the audience already knows and understands the divide between folk and rock in the 1960s and why it existed. Because of this, I found myself shrugging with indifference during A Complete Unknown’s climax, wondering if what I was watching was truly significant. There’s no question that the 1965 Newport Folk Festival incident was an iconic moment that altered the course of music history, but without being given a full emotional connection to what was at risk—particularly for the folk movement—it felt more like observing a tempest in a teacup.

What explains the era's animus against "going electric?" In part, the answer could perhaps be provided by the contents of the halftime show at yesterday's Ravens-Texans game. 

More specifically, the driving force, at that particular time, is suggested by the lyrics which introduce one of the songs on The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, the gentleman's amazingly early second album

The album appeared in May 1963. Dylan had turned 22 that very week, but he'd already written (and had now recorded) these remarkable songs:

Blowin' in the Wind
Masters of War
A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall

Fifty-three years later, that third song was still astounding when Patti Smith performed it before Swedish royalty at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony in 2016. 

The song was still astounding. Way back in 1963, a little-known songwriter said he'd seen such things as these when he was still 21:

I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin'
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin'
I saw a white ladder all covered with water
I saw 10,000 talkers whose tongues were all broken
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children

The new song continued from there. Here's part of the cultural context:

In a spoken introduction to one of that album's throwaway songs, Dylan is heard saying what's shown below. The irony is general over these remarks:

Bob Dylan's Blues

Unlike most of the songs nowadays being written up in Tin Pan Alley
That's where most of the folk songs come from nowadays
This, this is a song, this wasn't written up there
This was written somewhere down in the United States

"That's where most of the folk songs come from nowadays?" The cultural context was this:

Sad! The album appeared in May 1963. By that time, much of the energy of 1950s rock-and-roll had been subsumed by the Frankie Avalon-Fabian school of pop, with teen films like Beach Blanket Bingo destined to follow.

That pop culture was, in fact, being "written up in Tin Pan Alley." We recall how amazingly fresh and new it already sounded when Peter Paul and Mary broke (fairly) big with Lemon Tree in 1962.

That trio had itself been assembled in Tin Pan Alley, but they sounded very different. Soon thereafter, along came Dylan, one of their Greenwich Village contemporaries—not to mention Joan Baez—and the rejection of a certain species of manufactured shlock was instant in certain parts of the land.

The insistence on staying acoustic functioned within that context. Even the Beatles were culturally suspect when they arrived on the scene, insisting that they wanted to hold some unnamed person's hand.

As coincidence would have it, A Complete Unknown is a Christmas film this year. We spent a bit of time, in the past few days, spelunking within the bowels of our flailing nation's current "revolt from below." 

We did so with reference to a certain affectation on the Fox News Channel concerning Christmas movies. The affectation in question operates like this:

What's your favorite Christmas movie, a panel of Stepfords will ask themselves on one of the channel's programs. The ladies will name some standard titles—and at some point, one of the angry males will defiantly name his own favorite Christmas film:

Die Hard!

In part, so goes the current revolt from below, a revolution which is clearly winning at the present time.

In the past few days, we spent a certain amount of time trying to establish the timeline of the widely revered Frank Capra film, It's A Wonderful Life. Our own unanswered question was this:

How many times was the Jimmy Stewart character forced to renounce his lifelong dream of leaving Bedford Falls?

How many times did circumstance make him abandon his dream? We've finally nailed the confusing timeline down. 

(The answer is anywhere from two to four times, depending on how you score a pair of double renunciations—first at the apparent age of 21 or 22, then again four years later. Going to college was abandoned twice. Also abandoned was a trip to Europe, along with a later honeymoon with the person he was lucky enough to marry.)

On the Fox News Channel, the ladies are permitted to cite It's A Wonderful Life as one of their favorite Christmas films. Eventually, one of the fellows will shock the world by stating his preference for the 1988 "gender roles anthem" we've already named.

Triggered by this affectation, we decided to watch Die Hard last night. Frequently, we were struck by what we saw.

Even in that 1988 film, we saw major elements of the current "revolt from below." In particular, the film is bookended by the marital problems of the Bruce Willis character and his estranged wife, who's played by Bonnie Bedelia.

He's a working-class New York City cop. She's a giant-salary corporate executive—one who has even started using her "maiden name!"

How did these two ever get together to start with? That question is never explained. At any rate, by the end of the film, the Bedelia character is once again blurting her married name. Also, she's huddled on and behind her husband's arm in much the way, it must be said, a young couple is posed on the famous cover of Dylan's Freewheelin' album.

In the 1988 film in question, we saw the basic elements of the "revolt from below" which is currently being staged at the Fox News Channel (and pretty much everywhere else). 

For better or worse, Die Hard tells a modern "Christmas story." We'll lay it out in a bit more detail tomorrow. We'll also mention this (inevitably) unexplored question about the early Dylan:

What happened to his earlier "sexual politics" as the years went by?

Why did the kinder, gentler earlier Dylan become so sour in his remarks about the people he thought of as women? This may be our species' oldest story—and not just at Christmas time. It's an (almost wholly) unexplored story pretty much all year round!

At any rate, what explains the fight, in the 1960s, against going electric? Very frankly, it goes like this:

The young Dylan had already seen "guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children." Elsewhere, Beach Blanket Bingo was being peddled as Frankie Avalon and Annette moved on to movie careers. 

At the time, "electric" was code for Tin Pan Alley! Yesterday, did our failing nation possibly see a Tin Pan halftime show?

Tomorrow: He'd seen 10,000 talkers whose tongues were all broken? At present, for better or worse, our most influential talkers are gaggles of angry male comedians, backed by former professional "wrestlers." 

Could it be that their tongues are all broken? That, of course, is a matter of judgment. Also, the Willis character's' "wife-beater" shirt! Plus, that Christmas film's "pin-up" shots!


STORIES: Fox News reports major revelation!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2024

The New York Times serves a kibosh: Right here, on this very morning, we the people are being offered our choice of stories again.

It all depends on where we turn! At the Fox News site, a giant presentation is offered today beneath these giant headlines:

Former defense official makes earth-shattering UFO revelation as unexplained drones leave millions on edge
Man camping alone in California reported bright, white oval light, completely silent, hovering above trees

In its principal news report, Fox News is offering an "earth-shattering revelation." 

On the front page of today's New York Times, a different story is being told about the same general topic:

How Drone Fever Spread Across New Jersey and Beyond
The first sighting was at a military site in New Jersey, then the phenomenon spread into neighboring states. Government assurances that most “drones” were not drones at all have not tamped down curiosity.

Fox News is all in on a huge revelation. On balance, the New York Times is serving a plate of kibosh.

It's all about the so-called "democratization of media!" Thanks to the spread of new media, we all have a special place to go—a place where we'll encounter the types of stories we may prefer to be told.

This very morning, C-Span's Washington Journal asked callers to address this point of concern:

WAYS TO BRIDGE THE POLITICAL DIVIDE

In our view, that will be extremely hard to do as long as very large corporations are earning money, hand over fist, through the anti-journalistic practice known as "segregation by viewpoint." 

In our assessment, Fox News is "all in" on this profoundly unhelpful practice. In our view, the Times is also somewhat involved in this way of life, though to a (much) lesser extent.

Finally, this:

As heralded in yesterday's report, Nicholas Kristof's Christmas Eve column generated angry pushback on the Fox News Channel. (Online, his column had appeared on December 21.)

You can watch the video here as Father Gerald Murray tells guest host Raymond Arroyo, "This is all nonsense and garbage...This is an assault on the entire structure of western civilization." 

At the Fox News site, the video is accompanied by this dual headline:

New York Times questions virgin birth of Jesus: Christianity is under ‘assault’
Father Gerald Murray joins ‘The Ingraham Angle’ to weigh in on a New York Times article raising questions about the birth of Jesus.

Arroyo's principal post is at EWTN—The Eternal Word Television Network. (There's no reason why it shouldn't be.)  As for the work of historian Elaine Pagels, Father Murray offered this:

Her work is "propaganda masquerading as history...All of these historians like Pagels, who try to destroy Christian theology by making it into mythology? No. They are agents and propagandists. They are certainly not historians."

People like Pagels are agents and propagandists for what? Father Murray didn't say. But so it went as Kristof—somewhat clumsily, in our own view—attempted to "bridge the God gap." 

We all get to hear our preferred stories now! In what may be a type of disfigured gift, we know where to go to find them.

STORIES: Matthew and Luke left different stories!

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2024

So too with our tribunes today: Different chroniclers of the first Christmas have left different stories behind. Wisely and helpfully or possibly not, Nicholas Kristof writes about this matter in this morning's New York Times.

His column takes the form of an interview with historian Elaine Pagels. At the start of the column, Kristof describes it as "the latest in my occasional series of conversations about Christianity, aimed at bridging America’s God gulf."

Millenia have passed; different stories remain. Here's part of today's conversation, with Kristof's statements italicized:

A Conversation About the Virgin Birth That Maybe Wasn’t

Merry Christmas! This is a time when Christianity celebrates miracles and wonder—and “Miracles and Wonder” is the title of your fascinating forthcoming book. It raises questions about the virgin birth of Jesus...

I love these stories from the Gospels. The skies opened up when I heard them. They picture human lives drawn into divine mystery: “God in man made manifest,” as one Christmas carol says. But at a certain point I had to ask: What do they mean? What really happened? They are not written simply as history; often they speak in metaphor. We can take them seriously without taking everything literally.

[...]

You note that Matthew and Luke both borrowed heavily from Mark’s account but also seem embarrassed by elements of it, including the paternity question. Is your guess that they added the virgin birth to reduce that embarrassment?

Yes, but this is not just my guess. When Matthew and Luke set out to revise Mark, each added an elaborate birth story—two stories that differ in almost every detail... 

For the record, we admire Kristof's values. At any rate, Matthews and Luke told different stories, and these stories remain.

Today, our faltering nation's faltering discourse is a Babel of divergent representations. As a general matter, it all depends on where you go for your stories! 

(At this point, let's avoid such words as "information," "news" or "facts.")

Depending on where we go to hear our stories, we contemporary Americans will often hear completely different topics discussed. On occasions when members of different political tribes hear accounts of the same topic, we may hear completely different presentations about the topic at hand—completely different stories.

So it goes in this modern age, in the aftermath of the "democratization of media." First came the new technologies, then came the democratization! 

After that, the deluge, sometimes described as a Babel.

We're left with welters of contradictory stories. Sometimes, fruitcakes are charged with the task of dispensing these divergent tales, crackpots industrialists among them. 

How did it [ever] get this far? For amusement purposes only, we recall the story of Chatty Cathy, as told by the leading authority on the revolutionary talking toy. She was a cherished Christmas gift at an earlier point in time:

Chatty Cathy

Chatty Cathy was a pull-string "talking" doll...manufactured by the Mattel toy company from 1959 to 1965. The doll was first released in stores and appeared in television commercials beginning in 1960, with a suggested retail price of $18.00...

After the success of Chatty Cathy, Mattel introduced "Chatty Baby" in 1962 and "Tiny Chatty Baby," "Tiny Chatty Brother" and "Charmin' Chatty" in 1963. The last doll to have the word "chatty" in its name in the 1960s was "Singin' Chatty" in 1965.

[...]

The Chatty Cathy doll "spoke" one of eleven phrases at random when the "chatty ring" protruding from its upper back was pulled. The ring was attached to a string connected to a simple phonograph record inside the cavity behind the doll's abdomen. The record was driven by a metal coil wound by pulling the toy's string. The voice unit was designed by Jack Ryan, Mattel's head of research and development.

When it arrived on the market in 1960, the doll played eleven phrases, including "I love you," "I hurt myself!" and "Please take me with you." In 1963, seven more were added to the doll's repertoire, including "Let's play school" and "May I have a cookie?" for a total of 18 phrases...

The popularity of Chatty Cathy led to many pull-string talking dolls flooding the toy industry...

And so on from there. According to the leading authority, the Chatty Cathy doll "was a fanciful depiction of a human." 

So too, perhaps, today! 

Some experts now suggest that Chatty Cathy also led to the invention of the modern-day Fox News Channel contributor, a type of performer who is sometimes being compared to a pull-string talking doll. Such performers have the ability to repeat something like eleven phrases at any point in time, almost always after some other contributor has just emitted the same remark.

Similar arrangements appear elsewhere in the realm of "cable news," even in the mainstream press corps. Members of different tribal communities may be able to see this pattern among the contributors on one cable channel, though possibly not among the contributors on some other net. 

We Americans! We hear one set of stories in certain arenas, a whole different set somewhere else. In a December 1 guest essay in the New York Times, Olga Guralnik tried to explain why we may be inclined to assume that the only stories which are partially or wholly bogus are the stories the other tribe hears.

Dr. Guralnik "is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst practicing in New York." We thought her essay was insightful. Online, it appears beneath this lumbering headline:

As a Couples Therapist, I See the Same Destructive Patterns in Our Political Discourse

We expect to review this essay before our current search reaches its end. We endorse the use of the D-bomb—the use of the word "destructive."

Our current search involves a problem dogging many of us in Blue America. Many of us seem to have a very hard time answering these questions:

How did we ever lose to a person like Candidate Trump? Why would any decent person have decided to vote for him?

We think there are a boatload of answers to that second question. In our view, when we Blues can't think of even one, that may signal a problem with us. 

Dr. Guralnik explores that syndrome in her recent guest essay. In these letters, Times subscribers replied.

Last night, we Blues were being told about Gaetz and Trump and Elon Musk, whose steady stream of bogus claims and weird remarks never seems to end. 

Over on the Fox News Channel, viewers were offered stories, this very morning, about the way "this far-left Pope" directed the hapless President Biden to issue yesterday's commutations. It seemed to us that quite a bit of information was missing from the way this story was being told.

Different people hear different stories, sometimes laden with different ornaments cast in the role of the only relevant facts. This is the cultural arrangement we've chosen—or perhaps, this is the cultural arrangement which has now chosen us.

Last weekend, somewhat improbably, Rob Schneider opened for Donald J. Trump at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest 2024. As we noted yesterday, we knew Rob a tiny tad in the summer of 85.

He did a 15-minute set. You can see his performance here, starting at the six-minute mark.

As a general matter, we thought Rob's judgment wasn't especially great on this particular occasion. We refer to such unhelpful comments as this:

What an election! I haven't seen a man beat a woman that brutally since the Olympic Games.

Ha ha ha ha ha! That was an Olympics boxing reference, as Fest attendees knew.

We thought Rob's judgment wasn't especially great on quite a few such occasions. On the other hand, we'd say he touched on a couple of decent points in the part of his presentation where he said this:

The Democrats still seem confused as to why they lost the election...Let me clear it up.

In our view, he touched on a couple of decent points before veering back off the track.

As part of an ongoing revolt from below, American discourse is currently being commandeered by a gaggle of male comedians. This is true on the woeful Gutfeld! show, but also in other locales.

As a general matter, this strikes us as an amazingly bad idea. That doesn't mean that such observers may not, on occasion, say something which may possess a certain amount of merit.

Chatty Cathy started out with just eleven phrases. In the 1960 marketplace, that was more than enough. 

In the modern marketplace of ideas, a similar state of affairs seems to obtain. This is the cultural challenge our modern "nation" is facing.

Will our own Blue America have what it takes to rise to this cultural / corporate challenge? We know of no reason to think that we will. 

It seems to us that we the humans may not be wired for that work. It seems to us that Dr. Guralnik made a decent attempt to explain.


STORIES: Paul from Cornwall repeated a story!

MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2024

So had the pitiful Musk: Some of the western world's most treasured stories are told at this time of the year.

We humans are said to love our stories. It's said that we're inclined to gravitate to pleasing stores more than to verified facts.

So it can go with our stories! Yesterday morning, Paul from Cornwall, New York recited a newer story—a story many people across the fruited plain have now been condemned to hear.

Last week, to cite one example, celebrity circus clown Elon Musk recited this new (and inaccurate) story on the vehicle he purchased and renamed as X. For the background to that bit of storytelling, see Saturday's report.

Musk is widely said to be the richest person in the world. He often seems determined to reinforce an ancient claim—a statement drawn from one of the culture's oldest stories:

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

David French repeats that ancient statement right in today's New York Times! The aforementioned clown frequently seems to be determined to reinforce this claim.

Back to Paul in Cornwall, New York, on the western shore of the Hudson! Yesterday morning, at 7:15, he spoke by phone with the moderator of C-Span's Washington Journal

Responding to the morning's key question, he said he was "very optimistic" about Donald J. Trump's second term. To watch the videotape of this call, you can just click here.

Paul from Cornwall is "very optimistic" about Trump's second term. He has every right to "think that a-way"—but along the way, he said this about the recent budget bill which averted a government shutdown:

PAUL IN CORNWALL (12/22/24): ...I want to thank [Trump] very much for noticing that 40 percent pay raise Congress wanted to give itself, and they put the kibosh on that. No way to a 40 percent increase! I mean—

These members of Congress today! According to the C-Span caller, they had initially tried to give themselves a 40 percent pay increase!

Trump had put the kibosh on that unholy attempt. So the widely told, and wildly inaccurate, political story now goes.

At any rate, so said Paul in Cornwall, New York on a chilly Sunday morning. C-Span moderators rarely challenge their callers' claims, but in this instance, the statement by Paul in Cornwall produced this initial response:

PAUL IN CORNWALL (12/22/24): ...I want to thank [Trump] very much for noticing that 40 percent pay raise Congress wanted to give itself, and he put the kibosh on that. No way to a 40 percent increase! I mean—

MODERATOR: I don't believe it was a 40 percent pay raise. If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was six. But let me pull up the exact detail so we can get that number right. But continue your point while I look for that.

Paul did in fact continue his point. Soon, though, the moderator spoke again.

As it turned out, she had been mistaken in her initial statement. She was now correcting even herself! This is the way she started:

MODERATOR: So Paul, before I let you go—before I let you go, Paul, I just want to read about that 40 percent number. So there is a fact-check on that in Reuters, saying that the bipartisan stopgap spending bill did not include a 40% pay raise for Congress. 

Uh-oh! She now read from the Reuters fact-check, which was visible on the screen. This is the part of the fact-check which she read.

A temporary spending bill scuttled by opposition from President-elect Donald Trump would have made U.S. Congress members eligible for a 3.8% salary increase, not 40%, as suggested in posts online that misinterpret a report on congressional salaries. The bill would have ended a longtime pay freeze, allowing lawmakers to be eligible for a 3.8% salary increase in January, which would have been equal to $6,600.

Oof! In fact, the proposed pay raise had been killed—but it had actually been a 3.8 percent pay increase. That would have been substantially less than Paul from Cornwall's 40 percent.

In short, Paul from Cornwall had been way off. Here's how the colloquy ended:

MODERATOR: So that is the detail on that there, Paul. Did you have any other points before I let you go?

PAUL FROM CORNWALL: No, and I'm glad you fact-checked me on that. I do appreciate that, But still, they don't even deserve that, because the working class in America isn't even getting that. So—have a merry Christmas, everybody and [indecipherable] next year!

Paul's factual claim had been crazily off. But as is said to be a common practice among us humans, his Storyline remained.

We'll advance several guesses about that exchange:

Paul from Cornwall is a good, decent person. When he called C-Span yesterday, he didn't know that the story he had heard was crazily, wildly inaccurate.

As we noted on Saturday, the circus clown Musk was one of the people who had blared that bullroar to the waiting world. Millions of people—not just Paul—had thereby been misinformed by what this badly bloated designer of clown-cars had said.

Long lay the world! In ancient times, the world in question was overrun with conquering Roman legions. The world in which we live today is overrun with wealthy people who have agreed to cast themselves in the role of the conquering clown.

The aforementioned fellow is one of those people. Or it may just be that "something is wrong" inside the fellow's head. 

In the ancient story, an occupied people sought a way to deal with their occupation. Today, our clown-car drivers include major industrialists. Increasingly, they're assisted by a healthy assortment of D-list comedians staging an assault from below.

Tomorrow, we'll review the recent work of Rob Schneider, who we knew a tiny tad way back in the summer of 85. As a general matter, we disagree with Rob's political assessments at this point in time. In fairness, that of course means that he disagrees with ours.

For today, we'll close with one last part of Sunday's story. That's the part where the Reuters fact-check amazingly says this:

Fact Check: Bipartisan stopgap spending bill did not include 40% pay raise for Congress

[...]

VERDICT

Misleading. The bipartisan temporary spending bill, if approved, would have given members of Congress a 3.8% pay raise in January 2025, not a 40% pay increase.

No, we aren't making that up! Reuters could have delivered a verdict of "False." Delivering the coup de grace within our own tale, it went with "Misleading" instead!

(Long lay the world, the story says, in sin and error pining!)

We're going to bring you some stories this week. Our species tends to run on that rocket fuel, and our stories are frequently wrong.

Tomorrow: Terra Nova High School grad opens for Donald J. Trump!

Concerning Cornwall, New York: What's it like in Cornwall, New York? The leading authority on the community starts by telling us this:
Cornwall, New York

Cornwall is a town in Orange County, New York, United States, approximately 50 miles north of New York City on the western shore of the Hudson River. As of the 2020 census, the population was at 12,884. Cornwall has become a bedroom community for area towns and cities including New York City...

Cornwall's Main Street includes gift shops, taverns, restaurants, coffeehouses, yoga studios and boutiques. Government offices, churches, parks, the riverfront, and St. Luke's Cornwall Hospital, a part of the Montefiore Health System, are situated within walking distance of downtown. The town is a designated Tree City.

Cornwall was the top selection to represent New York State in "The Best Places to Raise Kids 2013" by Bloomberg Business Week magazine.
It sounds a bit like Camus' Oran. Faithful readers of this site will know what happened there!


SATURDAY: What the Sam Hill is megalomania?

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2024

We decided to give it a look: Yesterday, we heard a throwaway comment about "megalomania"—a comment directed at Elon Musk.

That said, what the heck is megalomania? For example, is it an actual clinical term? We decided to give it a look.

Below, we'll start you on your search. First, though, some recent findings by the New York Times' Linda Qiu.

Qiu decided to fact-check Musk's claims about this past week's original budget bill—the bill which was voted down after Citizen Musk, and then Citizen Trump, complained about its contents. 

She decided to fact-check Citizen Musk! Regarding this intervention, an earlier report in the New York Times had asked us to believe such improbable claims as these

Elon Musk Flexes His Political Strength as Government Shutdown Looms

[...]

In more than 150 separate posts on X, starting before dawn on Wednesday, Mr. Musk demanded that Republicans back away from a bipartisan spending deal that was meant to avoid a government shutdown over Christmas. He vowed political retribution against anyone voting for the sprawling bill backed by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called Mr. Musk on Wednesday to ask that he stop posting about the bill.

Mr. Musk also shared misinformation about the bill, including false claims that it contained new aid for Ukraine or $3 billion in funds for a new stadium in Washington. By the end of Wednesday, Mr. Trump issued a statement of his own, calling the bill “a betrayal of our country.”

It was a remarkable moment for Mr. Musk, who has never been elected to public office but now appears to be the largest megaphone for the man about to retake the Oval Office. Larger, in fact, than Mr. Trump himself, whose own vaunted social media presence is dwarfed by that of Mr. Musk. The president-elect has 96.2 million followers on X, while Mr. Musk has 207.9 million...

This week also marked the first time Mr. Musk has been able to use his website as a digital whip, driving lawmakers to support his desired outcome. 

[...]

One of Mr. Musk’s first posts about the spending bill came at 4:15 Wednesday morning in Washington.

“This bill should not pass,” the billionaire wrote on his social platform.

Between posts about his own video game antics and SpaceX’s satellite internet service, he used his X account to call the bill “criminal,” spread misinformation about its contents and issue a rallying cry to “stop the steal of your tax dollars!”

His posts followed a similar pattern of past activity on X, where he can become hyper-fixated on a single issue that bothers him.

[...]

On Wednesday, narrative eclipsed truth. “The terrible bill is dead,” Mr. Musk posted just before 4 p.m. in Washington, closing his post with the Latin phrase “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” which translates to “the voice of the people is the voice of God.”

"More than 150 posts?" Does anyone believe such claims about this clear-headed industrial giant? 

Does anyone really believe the claims according to which Musk "can become hyper-fixated on a single issue" as he allegedly "posts about his own video game antics" while reporting the voice of God?

Also, does anyone really believe that the man who knows the voice of God could or would traffic in misinformation? These claims seemed bogus on their face—until we perused Qiu's report.

Qiu's report took the form of a journalistic "fact check." Online, her report appears beneath this triple heading:

FACT CHECK
Assessing Elon Musk’s Criticisms of the Government Spending Deal
The world’s richest man posted or amplified inaccurate claims about the bill’s provisions for congressional salaries, a football stadium and biological research.

We'll simplify it for you. According to Qiu's report, Musk tweeted that the original bill contained a 40 percent pay increase for members of Congress.

According to Qiu, his claim was remarkably close to correct. The actual number was 3.8 percent. 

(With this devotion to technical accuracy, it's no wonder his space flights work!)

Also according to Qiu's report, Musk had tweeted the claim that the original bill included a “$3 billion NFL stadium in Washington, D.C.” According to Qiu (and everyone else), that claim was just plain false.

According to Qiu, the industrial giant had also shared an earlier post which claimed that the bill contained "$60B to Ukraine" and "Mask/vaccine mandates." Those claims were also bogus, Qiu said, before moving on to Musk's inevitable but bogus claims about "bioweapons labs."

This, of course, is the Christmas season. It's a season of nutballs and fruitcakes, but also of broken toys. 

That said, on what meat doth this particular nutball feed—this extremely high-end toy? With those questions dancing like sugarplums, we return to the terms of our search:

Is "megalomania" a clinical term? Or is it simply a colloquial term of derision? 

These were the fruits of our search:

The leading authority on the term instantly clicked us ahead to its report on "narcissistic personality disorder." At its companion site, Simple English Wikipedia was willing to tell us this:

Megalomania

Megalomania is a mental illness. People with megalomania have delusional fantasies that they are more relevant (important) or powerful than they truly are. They have inflated self esteem and overestimate their powers and beliefs. People with megalomania tend to exhibit a disposition that is less inclined towards humbleness.

The word "megalomania" is no longer used in the mental health field, and is not mentioned in either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD). Instead, this condition is now called narcissistic personality disorder.

We take that to mean that "megalomania" is no longer regarded as a diagnostic clinical term. Regarding the apparent substitute diagnosis, the leading authority on the matter starts by telling us this:

Narcissistic personality disorder 

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a life-long pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a diminished ability to empathize with other people's feelings. Narcissistic personality disorder is one of the sub-types of the broader category known as personality disorders. It is often comorbid with other mental disorders and associated with significant functional impairment and psychosocial disability.

Personality disorders are a class of mental disorders characterized by enduring and inflexible maladaptive patterns of behavior, cognition, and inner experience, exhibited across many contexts and deviating from those accepted by any culture...Criteria for diagnosing personality disorders are listed in the sixth chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

There is no standard treatment for NPD. Its high comorbidity with other mental disorders influences treatment choice and outcomes.

And so on, at length, from there. For the record, it isn't clear that Blue America's contemporary elites actually believe in this branch of modern medical science.

It's awkward to read about this particular clinical disorder. That's especially true for people who remember what the niece of the incoming president wrote about her uncle in a best-selling book whose specific assessments were almost wholly disappeared:

MARY TRUMP (pages 12-13): None of the Trump siblings emerged unscathed from my grandfather's sociopathy and my grandmother's illnesses, both physical and psychological, but my uncle Donald and my father, Freddy, suffered more than the rest. In order to get a complete picture of Donald, his psychopathologies, and the meaning of his dysfunctional behavior, we need a thorough family history.

In the last three years, I’ve watched as countless pundits, armchair psychologists and journalists have kept missing the mark, using phrases such as "malignant narcissism" and "narcissistic personality disorder" in an attempt to make sense of Donald’s often bizarre and self-defeating behavior. I have no problem calling Donald a narcissist—he meets all nine criteria as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)—but the label only gets us so far.

Mary Trump is a clinical psychologist. That doesn't mean that her assessments are necessarily correct.

Her assessments could always be bogus! That's even true when she goes on to offer this:

...A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe forms is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

The fact is, Donald’s pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for. 

So the observer alleged. Full disclosure:

According to current rules of the game, you can't be exposed to such ruminations within the mainstream press corps. Within their pixels or pages or endless broadcast hours, issues of mental health and mental illness can and will be applied in a wide array of contexts, but not in a context like this.

Again, this is the season of discarded fruitcakes, but also of broken toys. At present, a large assortment of such toys can be found beneath one public figure's tree.

As happenstance has it, these broken toys emerged from a remarkable array of early childhood experiences. This seems to include membership in a father's apparent cult; abandonment at an early age by a mother who was never seen by the broken toy again; and lifelong devotion to a grandmother who (literally) set a drunken grandfather on fire one night while he slept. 

For the record, the collection of highly unusual stories doesn't end there. According to prevailing rules of the game, you aren't allowed to contemplate these matters under prevailing arrangements.

Under prevailing arrangements, Citizen Musk can be derided for his megalomania, but only in passing, colloquially. He sits beneath the other citizen's tree in what may be a broken state.

The anthropologist Cummings once wrote of these seasonal trees, inhabiting a child's perspective as he did. He penned his account in the form of a poem—a poem which starts like this:

little tree

little tree
little silent Christmas tree
you are so little
you are more like a flower
who found you in the green forest
and were you very sorry to come away?
see          i will comfort you
because you smell so sweetly
i will kiss your cool bark
and hug you safe and tight
just as your mother would,
only don't be afraid...

And so on from there. There are many different ways to describe the array of human experience.

With respect to Cummings' account, there seem to have been no broken toys beneath that particular tree. Within our plainly failing society, we've come a long way from there.

What the heck is "megalomania?" Breaking every rule in the book, we decided to conduct a search. We decided to take a quick look!

FRIDAY: The darkest evening of the year...

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2024

Arrival of the solstice: Tonight is a special night, NPR reports:

Saturday is the winter solstice. Make the most of the shortest day of the year

Saturday is the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. It's not only the shortest day of the year, but the official arrival of astronomical winter.

"At 4:20 a.m. EST, the solstice marks the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and summer in the Southern Hemisphere," NASA says on its website.

That means from now until the end of June, each day will get a little bit longer...

The report continues from there. But what exactly makes this the solstice? The leading authority explains:

Winter solstice

The winter solstice, also called the hibernal solstice, occurs when either of Earth's poles reaches its maximum tilt away from the Sun. This happens twice yearly, once in each hemisphere (Northern and Southern). For that hemisphere, the winter solstice is the day with the shortest period of daylight and longest night of the year, and when the Sun is at its lowest daily maximum elevation in the sky.

And so on from there.

"The winter solstice is the day with the longest night of the year." Was this the night Frost had in mind in one of his most famous poems?

My little horse must think it queer   
To stop without a farmhouse near   
Between the woods and frozen lake   
The darkest evening of the year.  

In fairness, this may not be the darkest evening, but it's said to be the longest. We've been thinking about that line a lot in these recent short, gloomy days.

Metaphorically, we've been experiencing a great deal of darkness within our flailing nation's political affairs. The madness is visible all around us. But by law, it can't be discussed.

By way of contrast:

Here comes the sun, the Beatles once claimed. Any version of that song is good for the soul, but we especially like this rendition, by George and that other Paul.

Fellow citizens, Here comes the sun! At least as a matter of theory, that starts to happen, if slowly, tomorrow. 

In the alternate realm of lived events, it may be a long, unstable four years, a lengthy period driven along by the whims of a largely under-discussed collection of broken toys.

Frost's horse was between the woods and a lake. For us, it's a rock and a hard place!


THE SEARCH: Why did Harris lose to Trump?

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2024

Could the problem (in part) be Us? Why did Candidate Harris (narrowly) lose to Candidate Donald J. Trump?

The question deserves exploration. We restate a basic framework:

On the one hand, it's amazing that Harris came so close, given the ridiculous circumstance which thrust her into the campaign in late July. 

(We refer to President Biden's withdrawal from the campaign, roughly one month after his disastrous performance in the June 27 debate.)

No candidate had ever been asked to run a presidential campaign with such a late start. A person could imagine that Harris performed a political miracle by making the race so close.

On the other hand:

On the other hand, she may have lost by a narrow margin, but she lost by that margin to Trump. For many people in Blue America, this brings a few larger questions into play:
How could she, or anyone else, possibly have lost to him? 
Also, how could any decent person possibly have decided to vote for a person like Candidate Trump? 
Many people in Blue America can't seem to come up with an answer to those questions. In our view, that inability to compute points to a lingering problem over here within our own Blue American nation. 

Meanwhile, Van Jones has been conducting a search—a search which touches on those very same points. We think his search is worth reviewing. 

Last Saturday, Jones described his search, at some length, during a 53-minute discussion with Chris Cillizza. You can watch the videotape of that colloquy here. For Newsweek's report, click this.

Jones and Cillizza spoke at length. At the 19-minute mark, the slightly agitated Jones offers this assessment of his own political party:
JONES (12/14/24): The Democratic Party is in a ditch, upside down, with wheels spinning, going nowhere, on [BLEEPED]. 
Already, that doesn't sound good! But here's the fuller assessment:
JONES: The Democratic Party is in a ditch, upside down, with wheels spinning, going nowhere, on [BLEEPED]. And the people driving it are saying, "This is fine. This is fine."

So they can keep drinking their own pee water if they want to. I would be much more interested in having an honest conversation.
He wants to have an honest conversation. Or perhaps he's conducting a search.

For the record, the fact that Jones thinks X, Y or Z doesn't mean that those assessments are accurate. In our view, though, Jones has long been sharper than the average bear. We skip ahead to the part of the tape where he describes the fruit of his search.

At minute 27, the CNN commentator starts to describe a revolutionary fact. 
JONES: The mainstream media is now, by the numbers, the fringe. And the fringe, by the numbers, is now the mainstream...

If I'm sitting next to Anderson Cooper, I'm talking to a million people, maybe a million two. Down the road, on Fox, they're talking to three million people, maybe three point two.
Already, that sounds bad from the Blue American perspective. But here's the fuller assessment:
JONES: If I'm sitting next to Anderson Cooper, I'm talking to a million people, maybe a million two. Down the road, on Fox, they're talking to three million people, maybe three point two.

And there's some Twitstreamer—a Twitstreamer you've never heard of—talking to 14 million people!..[So] the fringe is now the mainstream, and the mainstream is now the fringe.
In that passage, Jones is describing an outcome which has been delivered by the "democratization of media." We're guessing that he doesn't intend for the term "Twitstreamer" to be viewed as a term of high praise.

Jones is describing the way our world now works "by the numbers." Under these new arrangements, the last shall be first and the first shall be last, as it says in a very old book! 

According to Jones, "We [Democrats] woke up in a body bag on Election Day" because we hadn't come to terms with this change in the way information (and its opposite) now gets delivered.

"We got beat on platforms I never heard of," he says as he continues. "Twitch, Kick, Rumble. All these platforms sound like symptoms of somebody in the hospital, OK? Twitch, Kick, Rumble? What is it?"

The numbers get even more overwhelming as Jones cites the 48 million people who watched part of Joe Rogan's session with Candidate Trump. And then, he turns to this, the essence of his search:

"So guys, get out of my face," he says. "We had the wrong analysis. We didn't even have the conceptual framework to understand what was happening to us." 

So Jones says, and at that point, Cillizza poses a question. When he does, Jones states the essence, at least to date, of his ongoing search:
CILLIZZA: How the hell did Donald Trump figure out the mainstream media is the fringe, and the fringe is now the mainstream?...How the hell was he, the 78-year-old guy who doesn't even have a computer and still like writes hand-written notes— How did he become the guy who cracked the code?

JONES: ...The problem is, you have a framework in your mind, "How can Donald Trump? How can Donald Trump? How can Donald Trump?" 

Guys, can we cut it out? Donald Trump is not an idiot! Donald Trump—Let me just be very clear. Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all of his critics.  You know how I know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House—

CILLIZZA: Totally agree.

JONES: —the Supreme Court, the popular vote. He has a massive media ecosystem bigger than the mainstream built around him and for him, and a religiously—a religious fervor in a political movement around him. And his best buddy is the richest person in the history of the world, and the most relevant Kennedy is with him.

This dude is a phenomenon. He is the most powerful human on earth and in our lifetime. And we're still saying, "Well, how is this guy?"

We look like idiots to ordinary people.

CILLIZZA: You're totally right.
Is Jones "totally right" in that assessment?  If you take him literally, we would largely say no. Otherwise, we'd  strongly recommend that you consider what he's saying. 

In some literal sense, is Donald J. Trump "smarter than all of his critics?" Taken in a literal sense, we wouldn't agree with anything resembling that assessment. 

Also, we don't know if Candidate Trump actually figured anything out in the way Cillizza's question might seem to imply.  It may be that someone else figured something out—or it may be that Trump simply stumbled into an approach which let him achieve a narrow win over an accidental candidate who was thrust into the race in late July of this very year.

We don't think of Candidate Trump as being "smart." At this site, we regard him principally as "disordered"—disordered in a way the mainstream press has agreed we must never discuss.

That said, does Jones really think that Donald J. Trump is smarter than everyone else? Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. It may just be his (visible) frustration speaking. We have no idea.

Whatever Jones may actually think, there's one more key part of the account he offers of his ongoing search. Around the 32-minute mark, we find him saying this:
JONES: Everything starts to come apart. All the old conventional ways of thinking and seeing have to be challenged. 

And what you have is, everybody's down on Trump. "He's a Big Dummy. He has a bunch of idiots around him." That's a lie! It's not true! 

He's not a Big Dummy. He doesn't have a bunch of idiots around him. And just because we don't understand it, that doesn't mean that he's dumb. If we don't understand it, that means that we're dumb!

The first thing we have to acknowledge is, we got beat by something we don't understand. And then all these liberals are wandering around, "Well, I just don't understand it."

Well, maybe because you're dumb and he's smart! Try that on! Because suddenly you're going to have lenses to say, "Well, how is he smart? How am I dumb?" Not, "I know he's dumb. Why are all these voters also dumb?" 
With that, the gents confront the poison in the piece. We refer to the reflexive explanation, widely seen inside Blue America, which holds that Candidate Trump's 77.3 million voters are just stupid—or perhaps are something worse.

For ourselves, we wouldn't describe Candidate Trump as being "smart." Eventually, though, Jones toys with the most significant fruit of his search—with the possibility that those of us in Blue America have met the real Big Dummy, and the real Big Dummy right now might possibly be Us.

Why did people vote for Trump? Imagining it a different way, why did so many people vote against our own candidate? Or possibly even this:
Why did so many people decide to vote against Us?
Why did so many people decide to vote the other way? We think the possible reasons go on and on and on. We think the story dates back many years, all the way back to its start in the autumn of 65. 

Why might decent people have voted for Candidate Trump? When we Blues can't name any possible reasons, could that suggest that we've met the problem, and the problem might include Us?

Next week: At long last, the (rather long) list

THURSDAY: What are the cable news ratings like?

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024

Sacred Troy overrun: Perhaps you're wondering what the nation's "cable news" ratings look like now that the year is over.

Over at Mediaite, Alex Griffing has reported the year-end numbers from Neilsen. Maybe Griffing's just kidding around, but he says these were the twelve highest-rated cable news programs over the course of the year:

Highest-rated cable news shows, 2024
 1) The Five 
 2) Jesse Watters Primetime
 3) Hannity
 4) Gutfeld!
 5) The Ingraham Angle
 6) Special Report with Bret Baier
 7) Outnumbered 
 8) The Faulkner Focus
 9) America’s Newsroom with Perino and Hemmer
10) America Reports with Roberts and Smith
11) The Story with Martha MacCallum
12) Your World with Neil Cavuto

Those are the twelve highest-rated shows.  For the record, they're all from the Fox News Channel.

At least in theory, these things come and go. That said, here/'s the somewhat gloomy start of Griffing's year-end report:

Fox News Crushes 2024 In the Cable News Ratings

As 2024 winds down, Nielsen Media Research averages for cable news ratings cement an undeniable trend for the year: Fox News’s increasing dominance as MSNBC and CNN face an uncertain future.

Fox ended the year by extending its winning streak with a consecutive ninth year at number one in both total viewers and the advertiser-coveted 25-54 age demographic. MSNBC landed in second place with total viewers...

Fox grabbed over 55% of the total cable audience in prime time and 49% of total day viewers for the year, marking its largest audience share since 2015. In November, the network increased that share to an unprecedented 62% of the total viewership across the industry. Post-election, that number soared even higher as Fox News captured 72% of the cable news audience in prime time for the month’s second to last full week. MSNBC scored 16 percent, while CNN had 11 percent of cable news viewers during prime time.

... Nielsen found that Fox was also the most-watched network throughout the election in the key swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 

Candidate Trump won the three "blue wall" states by narrow margins. Fox News was outperforming MSNBC in all three of those states. (Griffing doesn't say by how much.)

For ourselves, we look forward to dropping our endless attempt to speak about the (many) reasons why people may have decided to vote for Candidate Trump. In the new year, we look forward to seeking the most productive ways to discuss what happens on the Fox News Channel's various programs, and perhaps in the wider world of social media.

In our view, those of us in Blue America need to take a different approach. We need a new attitude. Over the course of the past few years, our cable tribunes kept trying to get the other guy locked up. However well-intentioned that approach might have been, it looks like it might not have worked. 

According to Griffing's report, here's the way it went over the course of the year. We'll edit the parts about viewers in "the coveted age 25-54 demographic," though that's the group the advertisers and perhaps the bosses care about most:

Fox News ends the year with an average of 2.4 million prime time viewers, a 31% increase from last year...CNN is also up 21% in the total average for the year with 700,000 prime time viewers...MSNBC is up 5% for the year with 1.25 million average prime time viewers..

For better or worse, Fox doubled the score on MSNBC, while CNN also had viewers.

The Five is the nation's highest-rated "cable news" show! It's also an imitation of life, a parody of journalism. It's an anthropology lesson—a fascinating study in the way we people may choose to behave.

THE SEARCH: Just another manic Wednesday!

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024

Also, Van Jones [HEART] President Biden: Long ago, during the 2016 campaign, he was described by his opponent as a puppet to Putin. 

Is he Elon's puppet now?

We refer to former candidate / incoming president Donald J. Trump. Yesterday, he created a contretemps when he intervened in the ongoing budget brouhaha, an action he took after Musk suddenly tweeted on the subject roughly a hundred times.

Or at least, we heard that number reported on cable news. All in all, it was just another manic Wednesday here in our struggling nation's version of Oran. 

The budget meltdown happened so late in the day that it didn't make the print editions of today's New York Times. Online, a report begins in the manner shown, featuring an unusually colorful bit of journalistic language:

Trump Criticizes Spending Deal, Pushing Congress Toward a Shutdown

A bipartisan spending deal to avert a shutdown was on life support on Wednesday after President-elect Donald J. Trump condemned it, leaving lawmakers without a strategy to fund the government past a Friday night deadline.

Mr. Trump issued a scathing statement ordering Republicans not to support the sprawling bill, piling on to a barrage of criticism from Elon Musk, who spent Wednesday trashing the measure on social media and threatening any Republican who supported it with political ruin.

It was not yet clear how Speaker Mike Johnson planned to proceed as the package, which was stuffed full of unrelated policy measures as well as tens of billions of dollars in disaster and agricultural aid, appeared to be hemorrhaging support. Some Republicans suggested he was mulling stripping the bill of everything but the spending extension and putting it to a vote, but the fate of such a measure was also very much in doubt.

Really? the bill "was stuffed full of" unrelated policy measures? Have editors at the New York Times barred use of the word "included?"  

Give the reporters credit! In today's report, they never say that Speaker Johnson had been trying to "shove the spending package down America's throat." 

They show that amount of restraint. But before too long, they do say this, bringing the eternal note of incomprehension in:

Even before Mr. Musk began making noise, a swell of Republican lawmakers...had been furious about the funding measure, which was rolled out on Tuesday night. It began as a simple spending bill to keep government funds flowing past a midnight deadline and into mid-March, but it emerged from bipartisan negotiations laden with $100 billion in disaster aid and dozens of other unrelated policies.

The G.O.P. resistance meant that in order to pass the bill, Mr. Johnson was going to have to rely, yet again, on Democratic votes to pass it, using a special procedure that requires the support of two-thirds of those voting. But by Wednesday afternoon, the backlash to the legislation had spread so far and wide in G.O.P. ranks that it was unclear whether he would even be able to muster a bare minimum of Republicans to partner with Democrats and push it across the finish line.

Say what? Speaker Johnson had been planning to use "a special procedure that requires the support of two-thirds of those voting?" Say hello to the cultural problem known as "the complexification of everything." 

In that passage, the Times reporters are referring to a procedure which could (possibly) be explained by Norman Ornstein but (almost surely) by no one else.  No average American citizen understands what the Times was talking about, and the Times didn't try to explain.

This complexification of everything will tend to lead to the disintegration of a large modern nation. When no one understands what's happening, people are free to fall back on the simplified stories they'll be told by their tribe's chosen tribunes.

Long ago and far away, those of us in this sprawling nation were periodically invited to chuckle at footage of South Korean legislators engaged in fist fights on the floor of their nation's legislature. 

Today, we Americans still get to watch the clown-car as it sputters and chugs along, periodically breaking down. By now, though, the clown-car in question is our own country—is us! 

The American carnage is everywhere now. As an example of what we mean, a visit to Mediaite offered these headlines at the start of this very morning:

CNN Panel Melts Down In Finger-Pointing Fallout Over Elon Musk’s Role In Derailing Spending Bill

139 Year Old Newspaper Shut Down Over Mayor’s $1.1M Defamation Lawsuit Win

‘F*cking Lying Piece of Sh*t’: Dan Crenshaw Lashes Out at Claim He Wants Pay Rise for Congress

House Democrat Says ‘I’m Just Gonna Sit Back and Sip My Tea’ and Watch Republicans Fight Each Other

Musk Sends Blatantly False Tweet About ‘Bioweapon Labs’ That Is Reposted More Than 30,000 Times

For the record, that CNN panel melted down on NewsNight, a program the network seems to have invented in hopes that manufactured screaming matches may attract a few additional viewers. 

The newspaper which is shutting down is doing so in the wake of what seems to be astoundingly dishonest behavior. 

Rep. Crenshaw can't seem to take it any more, and we can't say we blame him. Rep. Crockett is going to enjoy herself, sipping her tea, as our flailing nation comes apart at the seams.

In the midst of all this turmoil, some of us in Blue America may still be wondering about a pair of questions. The questions relate to an event which happened long ago—last month's presidential election:

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why would any decent person have voted for Candidate Trump?

Even in the midst of our current "American carnage," some of us may remember the days when such questions seemed to matter. As part of the answer to those questions, this report does appear on the front page of today's New York Times. We'll skip the first two paragraphs:

Biden, Wearied and Stinging, Prepares to Exit

[...]

This is the twilight of Mr. Biden’s presidency, the final days of the final chapter of an epic half-century political journey that has had more than its share of twists and turns. Time is catching up with Mr. Biden. He looks a little older and a little slower with each passing day. Aides say he remains plenty sharp in the Situation Room, calling world leaders to broker a cease-fire in Lebanon or deal with the chaos of Syria’s rebellion. But it is hard to imagine that he seriously thought he could do the world’s most stressful job for another four years. 

That does not make it any easier as Mr. Biden heads toward the exit. Nothing that has happened since he was forced to drop out of the race in July has made that decision look wrong, yet Donald J. Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris has been interpreted as a repudiation of Mr. Biden. It stung. It still stings. But unlike Mr. Trump four years ago, this president accepts the outcome.

[...]

Even when pushing for his priorities, Mr. Biden has found it hard to break through. During his visit to the Amazon rainforest last month, his fragility appeared painfully clear to those traveling with him.

After speaking for seven minutes on a day of draining humidity, a blue shirt hanging loosely over his frame, he turned to slowly shuffle away down a dirt path as several people in the audience not used to seeing him up close said they held their breath, worried that he would trip. (Aides said his gait was no more unsteady than usual.)

And so on from there. At any rate, aides still say that President Biden is "plenty sharp," but it's Peter Baker's assessment that he probably couldn't have done the job had he been re-elected. 

Meanwhile, in this morning's Wall Street Journal, a related report by Linskey et al. appears beneath this dual headline:

How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge
Aides kept meetings short and controlled access, top advisers acted as go-betweens and public interactions became more scripted. The administration denied Biden has declined.

This morning, Annie Linskey appeared on CNN to discuss the Journal's detailed report. In theory, the transcript of her remarks should be accessible here, in the 6:30-7:00 chunk of CNN This Morning

(At present, the transcript of that segment is missing.)

To what extent might President Biden have been diminished within the past several years? We can't answer that question, but as of August 2023, it seemed to us that it would be very hard for him to seek re-election.

Meanwhile, let the following be said:

When the president "slowly shuffled away" down that dirt path in Angola, the Fox News Channel ran with a bogus claim according to which he had unaccountably wandered off into the rainforest.

Even after additional video footage showed that this claim had been utterly bogus, players on the Fox News Channel kept pushing the bogus claim forward. This is the business our moguls have chosen as the so-called "democratization of media" continues to turn our sprawling nation into an array of warring tribes.

President Biden dropped out of the race in late July of this year. Candidate Harris was forced to jump in—and uh-oh! She herself was one of the people who had said that the president was still quite sharp.

(She had also said that the southern border was secure. Many people thought that was bullroar.)

President Biden dropped out of the race; Candidate Harris was forced to jump in. Did that unprecedented set of events possibly contribute some votes to Candidate Trump's narrow win? 

We would assume that it did. 

In our view, this was almost surely one of the many ways those of us in Blue America managed to lose this year's election. That said, many of us in Blue America still can't seem to conceive of any such explanations or reasons at all.

When President Biden stepped out of the race, Van Jones expressed his deep admiration for the departing candidate. For ourselves, we had a somewhat different reaction. 

That said, we regard Jones as a thoroughly serious player. At the time, People magazine reported some of what the CNN analyst said:

Van Jones Gets Emotional Talking About Joe Biden Dropping Out of 2024 Presidential Race

Van Jones appeared to fight back tears while discussing President Joe Biden stepping down from the 2024 presidential race.

While speaking live on CNN on Sunday, July 21, Jones, 55, became emotional as he spoke about Biden's decision to take himself out of the running. The president, 81, is now instead endorsing Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee.

[...]

Tearing up, the former Obama adviser went on, “Because this is somebody that you love. This is somebody that you care about. This is somebody who was there for you. This is somebody you wouldn’t be here without him. And you had to take something from him."

Jones continued, "If you're a young person watching this, this is leadership, this is patriotism. This is what it means to put the country first, and put the party first and put the cost first. When your arm gets tired you let somebody else finish pitching the game."

"That's what Joe Biden has done, and he's done that for all of us," he continued.

That wasn't our own reaction at this disaster unfolded. But Jones is a thoroughly serious person, and he's been conducting a search.

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why would any decent person have voted for Candidate Trump?

For ourselves, we've long regarded the president-elect as being (tragically but dangerously) disordered. Still, we can think of many reasons why other people might have decided to vote for him. Or perhaps, why people might have decided to vote against our own candidate, or just against the long-standing performance of our Blue American tribe.

How did we ever lose to that guy? Why would anyone vote for him?

Last Saturday, Jones stated his view on that matter to Chris Cillizza. All in all, he isn't impressed with our own tribe's political smarts. 

In our view, the whole thing started in 1965. We happened to be physically present when the downward spiral began.

Tomorrow, we'll try—we'll try especially hard—to review what Jones said to Cillizza. For the record, Bill Clinton said much the same thing in an interview with Joe Scarborough, and a guest essay in the Times attempted to explain why some of us in Blue America are perhaps unable to see what these people mean.

Tomorrow: Bill Clinton said much the same thing

WEDNESDAY: Stepford judge unloads on Harris (again)!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024

Anthropology all the way down: Winston Churchill famously described the Soviet Union of his day as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." 

Somewhat similarly, our nation's failing national discourse is often a clown-car inside a hall of mirrors driven by a bunch of con men.

By music men—and music women, or perhaps by a herd of Stepfords. Consider what happened again last night on the highest-rated TV show in all of "cable news" land.

For today, we won't depress you with the latest numbers from Nielsen. That said, the Fox News Channel clown-car, The Five, is that highest-rated "cable news" program. Yesterday, its Stepfords were once again assailing the dimwittedness of Vice President Harris, who lost last month's presidential election to the brilliant Candidate Trump.

The Stepfords were in their standard fine form, the better to sell their corporate owner's various talking-points with. Robotically, they recited the points their owners had placed on their messaging sheets. 

Finally, it came time for Judge Jeanine to declaim. 

For today, we'll spare you the checkered history of this illustrious "cable news" magistrate. Soon, though, here came da judge! As you can see by clicking this link, the judge was emphatically saying this:

JUDGE JEANINE (12/17/24): I think that the problem with Kamala Harris is that the woman is so inept, so incompetent, she is so inarticulate that she was a joke. She was! I mean, I don't know what she stood for. I don't know why anyone would even think she's got a chance at winning any other seat at any other race...

She didn't try to get new voters when she couldn't even perform with her own voters. She underperformed with blacks, she underperformed with the youth, and she had no interest in doing conservative media. She wasn't interested in the—I was reading about the monoculture that sports is. Nobody owns sports. That was a place for her to go in and she didn't bother.

And yet, Trump was smart enough. A lot is attributable to Barron. I mean, he understood the value of social media, how viral it goes when you capture something and then it continues to spread. And she just didn't get it. 

I mean, she had no message. She had nothing. And in the end, it's a slap in the face to the Democrat [sic] Party that she was even their candidate. She couldn't articulate how she was different than Joe. The woman is—she's just inept.

She wouldn't even do sports! It's astounding to think that the Democrat [sic] Party got stuck with someone like her!

This remains standard fare on the gruesome "imitation of life" known as the Fox News Channel. On programs like The Five, Harris is still the dumbest, stupidest, inexplicably worst presidential candidate ever. 

On that same channel's Gutfeld! show, she's still being mocked as "a drunk."

Let's get back to the judge, whose gruesome history we're setting aside for today.

The judge was performing like a trained seal, or possibly more like a Stepford. In fairness, the other players had taken their turns trashing Harris before the judge stepped in.

That said, the sheer stupidity of Fox News culture is routinely put on display when the Stepfords perform this particular script. We're even able to make ourselves find their behavior amusing.

Go ahead! Just riddle us this:

If Harris was the worst candidate ever, what exactly does that say about their champion, the fabulous Candidate Trump? These denunciations of Candidate Harris routinely coexist with declarations of his North Korean-adjacent greatness. So how, then, do the corporate Stepfords pretend to explain this?

Nationwide popular vote (to date), 2024 
Donald J. Trump (R): 77,300,739 (49.80%)
Kamala Harris (D):  75,014,534 (48.33%)

The riddle here would occur to almost any human. If Harris was the worst candidate ever, why did the greatest political strongman only manage to defeat her by less than 1.5 points?

How do the Stepfords square that circle? Of course! In the obvious way!

They square the circle by the prehuman process known as "sifting." Their channel's viewers are never told how close the nationwide vote really was. Instead, the Stepfords echo Trump's own language, finding a thousand different ways to convey the impression that he won this year's election in some sort of a landslide.

This is the existing state of what's left of our nation's "discourse." The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but the fact that people can be paid to behave this way is a lesson in anthropology.

Judge Jeanine is a lesson all by herself, a lesson in anthropology pretty much all the way down! We've spared you her journalistic history, which seems to emerge from a car.

Fuller disclosure: This goes on all night every night. On weekends, it can get even more phony and dumber.

This bullroar is broadcast to millions of voters. Over here in Blue America, our highly educated elites politely avert their gaze.


THE SEARCH: It could be as bad as the critics say!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024

But it could also be worse: To judge from the fruit of a Google search, we had never heard of Van Jones until April 20, 2009.

On that evening, he guested with Robert Redford on CNN's Larry King Live, which was still a significant program. We'd never heard of Jones at the time, but he made a strong impression.

Jones has been involved in a search—had been involved in a search for some time, including even then. First, though, let's consider what Bret Stephens says at the start of his new column for the New York Times.

Headline included, this is the way the column starts. We highlight two key points:

Done With Never Trump

It’s been more than nine years since I first denounced Donald Trump as a “loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians.” I’ve called myself a Never Trump conservative ever since, even when I agreed with his policies from time to time. I also opposed him throughout his run this year.

Could his second term be as bad as his most fervent critics fear? Yes. Is it time to drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement—and that rendered it politically impotent and frequently obtuse? Yes, please.

Who, and what, is Trump? He’s a man and the symbol of a movement. The man is crass but charismatic, ignorant but intuitive, dishonest but authentic. The movement is patriotic—and angry.

Some of that anger is intensely bigoted and some of it misplaced. That side of the anger gets most of the media’s attention. But some of it, too, is correctly directed at a self-satisfied elite that thinks it knows better but often doesn’t...

At this site, we don't vote the way Stephens has typically voted. This year, we both voted for Candidate Harris, though it must be said that neither of us was blown away, at least on balance, by her attributes as a presidential candidate.

Each of us voted for Candidate Harris. But as Trump has said this very morning, he managed to win "the biggest mandate in 129 years!"

He also seems to be out of his mind, as that lunatic claim might suggest. And we agree with the first key point Stephens makes in his column:

Donald J. Trump's second term could be just as bad as his most fervent critics fear.  In fact, we'll disagree with Stephens in this way:

It could be even worse!

This second term could be worse than his most fervent critics fear?  Yes, it could be that! 

It could be better than critics fear, but it could also be worse. As we watch the lunacy spread all through what's left of our "public discourse," we keep thinking of Professor Knox's horrific account of the fall of sacred Troy.

Achilles slays Hector before the high walls of that sacred city, then drags his body through the dust behind his speeding chariot. At that point, the fate of the city has been sealed. Professor Knox remembers:

PROFESSOR KNOX: The whole poem has been moving toward this duel between the two champions, but there has never been any doubt about the outcome. The husband and father, the beloved protector of his people, the man who stands for the civilized values of the rich city, its social and religious institutions, will go down to defeat at the hands of this man who has no family, who in a private quarrel has caused the death of many of his own fellow soldiers, who now in a private quarrel thinks only of revenge...And the death of Hector seals the fate of Troy; it will fall to the Achaeans, to become the pattern for all time of the death of a city. 

The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector's baby son thrown from the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery—all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history...

Achilles "thinks only of revenge." Once he's dragged Hector's body through the dust, the fate of Troy has been sealed. 

We keep flashing on the highlighted "images of that night" as we watch what's left of our clownlike "public discourse." We also think of the citizens of Oran, as described by Camus in his famous novel, The Plague:

CAMUS: [O]ur townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions. 

Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and thought that everything still was possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible. They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague...

Even after the signs of plague were visible in Oran, "the danger still remained fantastically unreal." Or at least, so Camus was willing to say about those fictional townsfolk.

The townsfolk of Oran just couldn't see the obvious signs of a plague. In recent years, many of us in Blue America have been unable to see the shape of our own onrushing defeat. 

This very morning, the panelists on Morning Joe were reassuring Blue America's viewers that things aren't nearly as bad as they might seem. That said, the host of that show kept telling us, in recent years, that the GOP couldn't possibly win this year's election. 

He said it over and over again over the past few years.

That brings us to the second key point in that passage from Stephens. He says that some of the anger behind Candidate Trump's "landslide" is "intensely bigoted."

For ourselves, we're inclined to stay away from such assessments. But that's what Stephens says.

That's part of what Stephens says. But he also says that some of the anger behind the candidate's narrow (but consequential) win "is correctly directed at a self-satisfied elite that thinks it knows better [than everyone else] but often doesn’t." 

As soon becomes clear, he's speaking there, at least in part, about the people those of us in Blue America—those of us in our own Oran—have been conditioned to trust. 

As he continues, he offers specific examples of what he specifically means. We ourselves don't agree with every word he types at that point, but he makes us flash on Camus when he explains the way the elite to which he himself belongs failed to understand the reach of Trump's appeal:

Never Trumpers—I include myself in this indictment—never quite got the point. It wasn’t that we’d forgotten Clinton’s scandals or were ignorant of the allegations about the Bidens. It’s that we thought Trump degraded the values that conservatives were supposed to stand for. We also thought that Trump represented a form of illiberalism that was antithetical to our “free people, free markets, free world” brand of conservatism and that was bound to take the Republican Party down a dark road.

In this we weren’t wrong: There’s plenty to dislike and fear about Trump from a traditionally conservative standpoint. But Never Trumpers also overstated our case and, in doing so, defeated our purpose.

It isn't that the NeverTrumpers were wrong. In some ways, it sounds like Stephens is saying that they simply "forgot to be modest."

Stephens goes on in some detail from there. As with the townsfolk of Oran, he says the conservative NeverTrumpers "never quite got the point" in various ways, until it was too late.

Eventually, he offers this self-indictment:

We also talked a lot about democracy. That’s important: The memory of Jan. 6 and Trump’s 2020 election lies were the main reasons I voted for Kamala Harris. But if democracy means anything, it’s that ordinary people, not elites, get to decide how important an event like Jan. 6 is to them. Turns out, not so much.

What ordinary people really cared about this year were the high cost of living and the chaos at the border. Why did Trump—so often deprecated by his critics as a fortunate fool—understand this so well while we fecklessly carried on about the soul of the nation?

What else did we not sufficiently appreciate? That, as much as Trump might lie, Americans also felt lied to by the left—particularly when it came to the White House cover-up of Biden’s physical and mental decline. 

Even in that telling passage, we ourselves wouldn't agree with every word. We do agree with two key points:

Our high-brow elites often seemed to have no idea what "ordinary people" cared about in this election. (It sometimes seemed that they didn't know, but also that they simply didn't care.)

Also, "ordinary people" often felt lied to by those of us in Blue America—not just by the very bad people who are known to be found Over There.

Stephens is a NeverTrump conservative. Van Jones has always been a Blue American liberal/progressive.

He grew up in Tennessee, ended up at Yale Law School. We well remember being impressed by how sharp he seemed in 2009. We'd never heard of him at the time, but he's been highly visible from there.

Last Saturday, when he spoke to Chris Cillizza, Jones gnashed his teeth at the blindness of his own tribe's failed elite. In Monday's report, we linked you to Rachel Dobkin's account of what Jones said in the lengthy discussion.

Basically, Dobkin got it right. This is the way she started:

Donald Trump Is 'Smarter' Than All His Critics—Former Obama Adviser

Van Jones, an ex-adviser to former President Barack Obama and current CNN political commentator, said on Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is "smarter" than all his critics.

Does Jones literally think that Donald J. Trump is "smarter" than the rest? Or was that a bit of hyperbole, emerging from the high frustration visible all through last Saturday's discussion?

We don't know how to answer that question. But Jones has been involved in a lifelong search, and his remarks about our own elites in Blue America were scathing.

We also think his remarks were basically accurate. To hear the key part of his critique, we'll suggest that you start at minute 28 of the Cillizza videotape. Tomorrow, we'll take it from there.

It could be as bad as Trump's critics fear—but it could always be worse! The fall of Troy was vicious, vile. To what extent has our imperfect human nature actually changed in the handful of years since then?

As you can see above, Stephens asks a painful question:

"Why did Trump—so often deprecated by his critics as a fortunate fool—understand this so well while we fecklessly carried on about the soul of the nation?"

That's precisely the question Jones asks in his colloquy with Cillizza. Perhaps in frustration, he says that Donald J. Trump is simply "smarter" than the rest.

We wouldn't put it that way ourselves. As he posts about his massive mandate, we'd be inclined to let "insane" take the place of "smart."

We wouldn't put it that way ourselves! But we think that Jones's search is on point within our own Blue Oran, a flailing community located just this side of what's left of sacred Troy.

Tomorrow: What Jones said about our own "elitism"

Friday: Explaining the persistent failure to see what's sitting right there