MyPillow, Overstock fail to relent!

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2024

True Belief marches on: The news report appeared online on July 20, in the New York Times. 

It provides the germ of an anthropology lesson, but also a lesson in logic. For starters, the news report ran beneath this dual headline:

The Voting Machine Conspiracy Theorists Are Still at It
Patrick Byrne, Mike Lindell and other Trump supporters who made baseless assertions that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the 2020 election are using court cases to keep spreading lies about the company.

Those are the headlines atop the report. Here are the first four paragraphs:

Nearly four years later, zealous supporters of former President Donald J. Trump who promoted the conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems had rigged its machines to rob him of the 2020 election are still at it.

Even though Dominion has aggressively defended itself in court, a network of pro-Trump activists has continued to push false claims against the company, often by seeking to use information gleaned from the very defamation lawsuits the firm has filed against them.

The network includes wealthy business executives like Patrick Byrne, who once ran Overstock.com, and Mike Lindell, the founder of the bedding company MyPillow. Both have sought without credible evidence to put Dominion at the heart of a vast conspiracy to deny Mr. Trump a victory.

It also includes a pro-Trump sheriff from southwest Michigan, a former election official from Colorado and Mr. Byrne’s own lawyer, who is facing charges of tampering with Dominion machines and who once worked alongside Mr. Trump’s legal team in claiming that the company was part of a plot to subvert the last election.

Remarkably, Lindell and Byrne "are still at it." Joined by a pro-Trump sheriff and a former official, they continue to pound away at the machinations of Dominion Voting Systems.

We'll recommend two approaches to the material we've posted. Thew first approach involves a collection of somewhat related terms. In order of appearance, the terms in question are these:

Baseless assertions
Lies
False claims
[The absence of] credible evidence

You can even add "conspiracy theory." Our notes would go like this:

Presumably, a "baseless assertion" will generally resemble an assertion which is made in the absence of "credible evidence." One question would go like this:

How does a "baseless assertion" differ from a "false claim?"

Moving right along:

Presumably, every "lie" will involve a "false claim." On what basis can we assert that a "false claim" is a "lie?"

Also and even this:

Can a "baseless assertion" turn out to be true? How about a "conspiracy theory?" In the face of such complexifications, we always think of Gene Brabender, the 20th century's greatest anthropologist. As recorded by Jim Bouton, his most famous remark went like this:

Where I come from, we only talk so long. After that, we start to hit.

Those questions stem from the old puzzler, "What's in a word?" Now we turn to a different set of ruminations:

Is it possible? Is it possible that Lindell and Byrne still believe that the last election was somehow stolen by something done by Dominion? 

Is it possible that they actually believe some such thing? That they therefore aren't actually "lying?"

We don't know how to answer that question. We'd love to see journalists speak to medical / psychological specialists about such matters. That said, if history has taught us anything, it teaches that they're likely to speak to the Easter Bunny first.

Full disclosure! We've all been exposed to a major anthropological lesson over the past dozen years. The apparent lesson is this:

Especially in highly fraught circumstances, you can get a whole lot of people to believe almost any damn fool thing. 

With that, one last question comes to mind:

Is it possible that a nutcase like Donald J. Trump is actually one of those people? Is it possible that he actually believes the baseless assertions he makes?

Full disclosure: As we noted this morning, we studied under Professor N. That's probably why we're so sharp.

THE REVOLT: Submission grappling promoter expounds!

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2024

The tools do this every night: Who in the world is Chael Sonnen? 

Below, we'll start to answer your question, possibly for the second time. First though, riddle us this:

Who the heck was José  Ortega y Gasset? Also, what did he say in his most famous book, The Revolt of the Masses? It's a book whose intriguing title has lately been troubling our dreams.

Did we ever read The Revolt of the Masses? If so, it would likely have been in our sophomore year in college. 

We prospective philosophy majors had all fled the department after taking Phil 3 from a certain 25-year-old professor. We ourselves spent a year in exile in European History & Lit. 

As for Ortega y Gasset, we finally decided to look him up after watching Sonnen last night. The leading authority on his life tells us this:

 José Ortega y Gasset

José Ortega y Gasset (1883 – 1955) was a Spanish philosopher and essayist. He worked during the first half of the 20th century while Spain oscillated between monarchy, republicanism, and dictatorship. His philosophy has been characterized as a "philosophy of life" that "comprised a long-hidden beginning in a pragmatist metaphysics inspired by William James, and with a general method from a realist phenomenology imitating Edmund Husserl, which served both his proto-existentialism (prior to Martin Heidegger's) and his realist historicism, which has been compared to both Wilhelm Dilthey and Benedetto Croce."

Good lord! Apparently, though, one author did say that, though only once, in a book. 

Moving right along, what about that alleged revolt? Here's part of the way the authority thumbnails Ortega's most famous book:

The Revolt of the Masses

The Revolt of the Masses (Spanish: La rebelión de las masas) is a book by José Ortega y Gasset. It was first published as a series of articles in the newspaper El Sol in 1929, and as a book in 1930; the English translation, first published two years later, was authorized by Ortega.

[...]

In this work, Ortega traces the genesis of the "mass-man" and analyzes his constitution, en route to describing the rise to power and action of the masses in society. Ortega is throughout quite critical of both the masses and the mass-men of which they are made up, contrasting "noble life and common life" and excoriating the barbarism and primitivism he sees in the mass-man.

He does not, however, refer to specific social classes, as has been so commonly misunderstood in the English-speaking world. Ortega states that the mass-man could be from any social background, but his specific target is the bourgeois educated man, the señorito satisfecho (satisfied young man, or Mr. Satisfied), the specialist who believes he has it all and extends the command he has of his subject to others, contemptuous of his ignorance in all of them.

You can make of such things what you will. The authority includes this excerpt from Chapter 8 of Ortega's once-famous text:

The Fascist and Syndicalist species were characterized by the first appearance of a type of man who "did not care to give reasons or even to be right," but who was simply resolved to impose his opinions. That was the novelty: the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: "the reason of unreason."

— Chapter 8, "Why the Masses Intervene in Everything and Why They Always Intervene Violently"

You can make of that what you will. Also, you can look up "syndicalism" yourself. 

For the record, Ortega never had the chance to watch American "cable news." He never watched a single program on our flailing nation's "cable news" channels. 

He never got to do that! Had he watched the Fox News Channel last night, he ould have seen the aforementioned Sonnen—the person you see thumbnailed below—presented asc some sort of political analyst.

Below, we'll tell you how it went. Here is Sonnen's thumbnail:

Chael Sonnen

Chael Sonnen (born April 3, 1977) is an American submission grappling promoter, mixed martial arts (MMA) analyst, and retired mixed martial artist. Beginning his MMA career in 1997, Sonnen competed for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), where he became a top contender in both the light heavyweight and middleweight divisions and challenged for both the UFC Light Heavyweight and UFC Middleweight Championships. Sonnen has also fought in World Extreme Cagefighting, Pancrase, and most recently for Bellator MMA. Sonnen is often considered one of the best mixed martial artists never to have won a major MMA world championship and one of the sport's greatest trash-talkers.

In 2014, Sonnen began working as a MMA analyst for ESPN and two years later, in July 2016, founded Submission Underground (SUG), his own submission grappling promotion.

We're omitting the passage about the incident in the Las Vegas hotel corridor back in 2021. As best we can tell, the attendant lawsuits continue.

In short, Sonnen is a "submission grappling promoter" and a former mixed martial artist. Last night, in his latest appearance on Fox, he was also cast as a political / social analyst.

To our eye and ear, he came across last night as an extremely speedy, somewhat borderline possible semi-nutcase. 

Needless to say, he appeared on the Gutfeld! program. Last evening, this was the panel of analysts:

Gutfeld! panel: Thursday, July 25, 2024
Chael Sonnen: Submission grappling promoter. 
Tyrus: Former professional wrestling champion. Performs as a comedian.
Kat Timpf: Performs as a comedian.
Jamie Lissow: Performs as a comedian. 
Greg Gutfeld (host): 59 years old. Performs as a comedian. 

So it went! Three comedians, joined by one former professional wrestler and one submission grappling promoter. This collection had been assembled to spend an hour, in primetime, conducting political and cultural analyses on our struggling nation's most-watched "cable news" channel.

"Revolt of the masses," someone once said. Not that there's anything wrong with it! 

In fairness, we also thought of Ortega's book title when we watched the first hour of Fox & Friends this morning. In our view, MSNBC is bad enough, but something resembling that alleged revolt seems to take place on the Fox News Channel during quite a few hours each day.

Last night, Sonnen had been deposited in the chair occupied this past Monday night by a 23-yea-old model and actress who has recently begun to "dabble in political commentary." This is the way the clown car rolls on this particular "cable news" channel, as our nation seems to seek a way to follow behind "sacred Troy."

Last night, Sonnen struck us as someone who may have ingested seven or eight too many Red Bulls before the taping began. You can assess his first presentation simply by clicking here

(For the record, he seems to think the vice president's first name is "Kuh-MALL"—two syllables only.)

In the modern lexicon, what happens on this nightly, primetime "news" show might be described as the revolt of the flyweights—but also, of course, as the recitation of the corporate tools.

The analysts all know what to say, and they all proceed to say it. Everyone recites the views of the corporate entity signing their checks. 

They all know what they're paid to say, and they seem eager to say it. (We can't say that MSNBC totally differs from this.)

You can watch Sonnen by clicking that link. That said, we've been discussing the Monday night Gutfeld! show, and we'll return to that debacle as we finish our report.

More specifically, we'll look at the "conspiracy theories" which were possibly whispered that night as the assortment of jugglers and clowns recited the scripts of their paymaster. Indeed, a person could almost think that it started with Gutfeld himself. 

He had started that evening's program by wondering if Hunter Biden will now start "dating" the first lady. (On Tuesday evening's show, his altered his presentation. His verb of choice was now "f*cking.")

He started with the "dating." After that, the rage-infested fellow explained how to pronounce the Vice President's name.

It isn't KAHMA-ala, he helpfully said. The pronunciation is "IDIOT."

This rage-infested corporate tool is 59 years old! We each went to high school right there in San Mateo—we ourselves at Aragon High, he at Tom Brady's Serra.

We can't imagine how a person so filled with rage can emerge from such a sunny land. But if some such "mass man" does so emerge, the Fox News Channel will find him!

Back to those possibly whispered conspiracy theories. Did the rage-filled host kick-start the fun? At 10:07 p.m., on Monday night, the termagant offered this:

GUTFELD (7/22/24): Now, there could be something else going on here. Is there more to Joe dropping out than we know? Does it have something to do with Butler, Pennsylvania? 

I'm not suggesting the Dems tried to have Trump killed, of course...

But remember. Secret Service Director Cheatle was on Jill Biden's security detail. Jill reportedly pushed for Cheatle to get that top job. 

They're a perfect pair—a DEI hire gets a shot, and a phony doctor can give you first aid. 

But what if, when resources are allotted, favorites are played with experience and manpower? It's pretty clear that the White House didn't take threats to Trump seriously. Could this have been negligence by derangement—a shared antipathy for Trump?

So it went, as he struggled to avoid suggesting that the Dems tried to have Trump killed. He was merely asking—asking if President Biden's withdrawal from the campaign had something to do with what happened in Butler that day.

The termagant never doubled back to explain what he meant by that question. In fairness, he instantly said he wasn't suggesting that the Dems tried to have Trump killed—though that, of course, is a time-honored way to float the thought that maybe they possibly did.

So the termagant said, early on, after talking about Hunter "dating" Jill, and after helping us know how to pronounce the VP's name. The guy can keep it up all night, and he typically does.

That said, other members of Monday's panel may have seemed to be floating other theories of the conspiracy kind. It started in an innocuous way, possibly picked up steam:

Dr. Drew Pinsky, 65, grew up with every discernible advantage. He chooses to appear on Gutfeld! all the same.  

By 10:13, he was flatly misstating the contents of the 25th amendment. He then built upon his misstatement, telling us what "you can imagine": about the reason why President Biden stepped aside. 

For the record, "you can imagine" lots of things. On this occasion, Dr. Pinsky did.

"Where do they find people like this?" one of the analysts asked. We don't know, but by 10:17, this same Dr. Drew was lodging a complaint about the Biden administration.

"They're causing conspiracy theories to break out," the privileged potentate comically said. 

As we noted yesterday. the 23-year-ol model who is now dabbling took her turn at 10:33 p.m. "I've been called a conspiracy theorist all day," she said. 

From there, she proceeded to show several million viewers why such things had been said.

That said, it was the former professional wrestler who took the cake this night. At 10:35 p.m., the giant blob of protoplasm started by offering this:

TYRUS: Again, this is the DIE. The biggest questions that should be there is the coincidences that are just too ridiculous to ignore. 

He proceeded to list the coincidences that are just too ridiculous to ignore. In doing so, he seemed to create a speculation about the complicity of "Dr. President Jill" in the recent assassination attempt directed at Donald J. Trump.

It was all amazingly clear to Tyrus. None of the other analysts spoke up—and then at 10:39 p.m., the former professional wrestler and current savant was suddenly back for more:

TYRUS: We still don't know who ordered Afghanistan. It's the same person (pretends to cough)—Dr. President Jill. It's like the same person!

No one else spoke up. On this show, the first lady ordered Afghanistan back in 2021. By the next evening's Gutfeld! program, the termagant/host was saying he hopes she isn't "f*cking" her son.

So goes the nightly revolt, as directed by the aging señorito satisfecho. As this nightly revolt unspools, Blue America's finer thought leaders politely avert their gaze.

We'll close by citing a few other books:

More than a decade ago, we began to quote a prophetic statement by the classicist Norman O. Brown. Brown was very hot in the 1960s, on the basis of two books which we actually did read, or at least attempted to read:

Major books by Norman O. Brown 
Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History (1959)
Love's Body (1966)

Brown is rarely mentioned today. Back then, he was very hot. Upon his death in 2002, the New York Times published this lengthy obituary, testifying to his earlier influence.

More than a decade ago, something Brown once said began to trouble our dreams. We thought it must have come from one of his books, but as this memoir attests, it actually came from a Phi Beta Kappa Address he delivered at Columbia in 1960.

We don't know how we knew about that obscure address. That said, as best we can tell, the murky statement in question went like this:

BROWN (5/31/60): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned... 
And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

For the record, we have no clear idea what that actually means. That said, Brown seemed to suggest, even then, that our society was "ending in exhaustion." 

He said our civilization needed to be renewed by the discovery of a new mystery, "by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all [hu]mankind."

Brown sought the aid of the poets. We've thought this week of Carl Sandburg, the poet and the biographer. 

We've thought about the passage in Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years in which the president-elect journeys back to Coles County, Illinois to say goodbye to his step-mother—to Sally Bush Lincoln, the person who had been able to see, when Lincoln was young, that her stepson was very different.

In his famous biography of Lincoln, the poet described their last meeting:

SANDBURG: The next day Lincoln drove eight miles out to the old farm along the road over which he had hauled wood with an ox team. He came to the old log house he had cut logs for and helped smooth the chinks; from its little square windows he had seen late winter and early birds.

Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked; they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.

He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.

She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags or cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.

The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and then there would be silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.

So spoke the poet biographer; so ended this brilliant chapter. In Sandburg's portrait, the sunshine of the prairie summer—and with it, the world of the "common man"—would be there in Lincoln's heart, even when he was being cheered by thousands in giant East Coast parades.

Ortega's "mass man" isn't the American average person. Over here in Blue America, we badly need a poet who can help us regain our connection to the world of people who didn't go to Harvard or Yale or Brown. 

We need to renew our civilization! Or are we the only people who are able to watch cable TV each night?

Over at the Fox News Channel, they assembly a gang of flyweights and clowns to go on the air each night. Each night, the jugglers and clowns proceed say the things they're paid to say. 

Our own thought leaders, in their greatness, choose to avert their gaze. We Blues continue to talk to ourselves, as we've been doing for years.

Sonnen? He's a submission grappling promoter but also, just perhaps, a bit of valuable tool. In the course of his daily life, he may be the world's nicest person.

That said, is the first lady f*cking her son? Did she order Afghanistan? Was she imaginably involved somehow in the assassination attempt?

Has the first lady been f*cking her son? Inquiring minds are encouraged to wonder. Timpf, who plays the thoughtful cast member, sits on her ascot and stares.


They took the car keys from President Biden!

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2024

They've left the bombs in Trump's hands: In the case of President Biden, it was fairly easy for the press corps to identify the apparent problem. 

It looked like a type of problem which everyone had seen before, if only in classic films like Driving Miss Daisy or Under Golden Pond.

It looked like a type of "senility" or possibly "dementia." It looked like the type of problem which—as everyone persistently said—makes you take the keys away from an aging parent.

President Biden's apparent affliction seemed fairly easy to name. In the case of former president Trump. it has been much harder for our journalists to name his apparent or possible affliction.

The gentleman makes crazy statements with regularity, like the ones we noted yesterday afternoon. That said, he seems to be full of energy—and yes, he actually can complete sentences. He does so much of the time. 

Bowing to an ancient prohibition, our news orgs agreed that no one should discuss the possibility of some sort of severe mental illness. And so our major scribes—they aren't always especially sharp, and they aren't overwhelmingly honest—decided to brand Trump a LIAR and pretty much leave it at that.

That leaves us with a ranting person offering rants like the ones we mentioned yesterday. Also, it leaves us with a major, highly intelligent journalist writing am essay like the one Anne Applebaum just offered.

Applebaum is a very important journalist and author. She watched Trump's convention address, and she said she found it baffling. 

Eventually, he "digressed into pure gibberish," she says in her piece for The Atlantic. Here are the two examples she cited, exactly as they appear in The Atlantic, major typo and all:

They’re coming from prisons. They’re coming from jails. They’re coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. I—you know the press is always on because I say this. Has anyone seen The Silence of the Lambs? The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’d love to have you for dinner. That’s insane asylums. They’re emptying out their insane asylums. And terrorists at numbers that we’ve never seen before. Bad things are going to happen.

Another:

In Venezuela, Caracas, high crime, high crime. Caracas, Venezuela, really a dangerous place. But not anymore, because in Venezuela, crime is down 72 percent. In fact, if they would ever in this election, I hate to even say that, we will have our next Republican convention in Venezuela because it will be safe. Our cities, our cities will be so unsafe, we won’t be able—we will not be able to have it there.

Applebaum described those excerpts as "pure gibberish." We can't really say we know why.

We aren't vouching for the accuracy of those presentations, which occurred shortly past the one-hour mark in one brief part of Trump's endless address. 

We aren't vouching for those presentations. As far as we know, Trump was making a set of (highly familiar) claims which are basically bogus.

Fact-checkers have widely stated that the picture he was painting there simply isn't accurate. But that doesn't mean that the statements are gibberish. They're part of a perfectly coherent set of claims which the candidate makes all the time—a perfectly coherent set of claims which seem to be grossly inaccurate.

What is Trump claiming in those excerpts? He's saying that governments in countries like Venezuela are emptying out their prisons and sending their criminals here.

Also, he's saying that governments are emptying their "insane asylums" and sending those people here. He's even supplying statistics about the drop in crime which has allegedly happened in countries like Venezuela. 

Alas! Fact-checkers have routinely said that his claims are unfounded and / or simply inaccurate. They've said that his statistics seem to have been made up. 

That said, it's easy to see what the gent is claiming. Why would someone as sharp as Applebaum describe those presentations as "gibberish?"

Before we proceed any further, at least three typos lurk in Applebaum's two examples. Here's what Trump actually said in that second example:

In fact, if they [the Democrats] would ever WIN this election—I hate to even say that—we will have our next Republican convention in Venezuela because it will be safe. 

Candidate Trump said "win," not "in." You can see that at the 67-minute mark of the C-Span videotape of his speech

As presented in The Atlantic, that second example didn't seem to make sense.  After correcting the typo, Trump's (very familiar) statement strikes us as easy to follow. The first example in The Atlantic also includes at least two typos, as you can see at the C-Span video's 65-minute mark.

That's amazingly sloppy work on the part of The Atlantic. Moving right along:

Presumably, Trump's statement about holding the next convention in Caracas wasn't mean to be taken literally. In fact, you can hear the audience laughing at several familiar parts of those two presentations.

Adjusting for such considerations, Trump was painting a familiar if inaccurate picture. He was claiming that our nation is being overrun by gangs of criminals and psychiatric patients who are being shipped here from foreign lands.

Why did those presentations strike Applebaum as "gibberish?" We have no idea. But beyond that, there lurks a larger question:

Is there something wrong in Donald Trump's head? If so, what is it?

Way back in 2017, Dr. Bandy C. Lee, a Yale psychiatrist, edited a best-selling book which carried this ominous title:

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President 

Rightly or wrongly, the medical specialists who contributed essays to the book claimed that Trump was, or seemed to be, (severely) mentally ill, in a way which was said to be dangerous. With the book's publication, the inevitable happened:

Major news orgs agreed that such claims must never be discussed. 

The book was therefore disappeared. Later, our journalists were willing to discuss President Biden's possible "dementia," as was completely appropriate. But they've never been willing to discuss the (fairly obvious and tragic) possibility outlined in Dr. Lee's best-selling book.

Instead, they settled for calling him a LIAR. Also, at a fairly recent point, they began saying that Trump was exhibiting the same signs that had become apparent with President Biden. As they struggled to make that case, they ignored the larger, more obvious problem.

Our journalist settled for calling him a LIAR. But what if it's worse than that? 

Applebaum watched his convention address and called those excerpts "pure gibberish." We don't know why such a prominent and intelligent person would settle for that diagnosis.

It's easy to see what Trump was saying in the excerpts Appelbaum offered. But why was Trump making those overwrought claim—and why does he persistently make claims which are even crazier?

Applebaum's guild has never been willing to puzzle that out. They've been willing to take the car keys from Biden while leaving the bombs in Trump's hands! 


ANGER: The Termagant sat surrounded by Usefuls!

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2024

"IDIOT," he instantly said: It was Monday evening, July 22. The Termagant sat on a Fox News Channel set, presiding over a gathering of Usefuls.

The show was broadcast at 10 o'clock Eastern. If normal procedures had been followed, the program had begun to tape at 6:15 p.m. 

As is his wont, The Termagant opened with a handful of jokes. For those condemned to be watching at home, this bracing bit of analysis was offered at 10:02 Eastern:

TERMAGANT (7/22/24) Now that all the Democratic Party's hopes are resting on the VP, once again they are saying that mispronouncing her name is racist. 

Remember, it's not "KAHM-ala." It's "IDIOT!"

[APPRECIATIVE LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE]

Thus spake The Termagant, encased in a chorus of Usefuls. As he delivered this bit of messaging, his program was two minutes old. 

So it goes, night after night, in this, the American nation. In his very next joke, the Termagant delivered what has become a nightly theme:

Now that President Biden has left the campaign, Hunter Biden and first lady Jill Biden may be "dating" or "f*cking." 

In yesterday's report, we transcribed the text of these recent jokes. Last night, the angry fellow delivered that message again, this time a bit later in the primetime "cable news" program than has become the norm.

Back to the gaggle of Usefuls! Yesterday, we called the roll of Monday evening's collection. The roster looked like this:

It included a 23-year-old model and actress who "has begun to dabble in politics."

It included a 400-pound former "wrestling champion" who spent the evening saying and suggesting that "Dr. President Jill" had been the secret mastermind behind a recent assassination attempt, but also behind the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021.

It included a 65-year-old "American media personality" who had grown up with every apparent advantage, but chose to appear on this program all the same.

It included the person who is cast, and who performs, as he program's more thoughtful "libertarian." As you can see by clicking this link, she was soon marveling at this fact about the previous day's announcement by President Joseph R. Biden:

TIMPF (7/22/24): The dude drops out on Twitter! It's like, it's like, you can't—

It's all so crazy, and it's crazy in ways that none of us can expect.  I mean, where is he? 

Where is he? the Thoughtful Cast Member said. Scornfully, she said the president's failure to appear in public was "crazy in ways that none of us can expect." 

For the record, the dude in question is 81 years old. As everyone else on the planet knew, he had been at home, recovering from Covid, when he made his announcement. 

Everyone understood this fact—everyone except The Usefuls and The Termagant himself. 

Sad! Timpf was extending a point of feigned puzzlement The Termagant himself had introduced in the program's very first minute. In the program's very next minute, he was messaging the claim in which Vice President Harris is an IDIOT. 

The reason for the president's failure to make a public appearance was never mentioned this night.

So it went as this gaggle of Usefuls advanced the messaging of the "cable news" channel which pays them. So it went as a 400-pound professional wrestler kept suggesting that the first lady had somehow been involved in a recent assassination attempt. 

Conspiracy theories were floating about as the hour proceeded. As early as 10:07 p.m., The Termagant almost seemed to be floating one such idea by saying that he wasn't. 

("I'm not suggesting the Dems tried to have Trump killed.")

He may not have been suggesting that, but the wrestler was less fastidious. Meanwhile, the astounding stupidity of this panel was showcased all through the night.

For the record, it isn't the fault of the 23-uear-old model that she's only begun to dabble. She didn't book herself on the show—though we'll assume that the suits who accomplished that task understood what they'd be getting.

During the course of the hour-long program, this particular Useful engaged in a world-record assortment of absurd speculations:

She suggested that Hillary Clinton might end up replacing Vice President Harris as the Democratic candidate for president.

("I know she endorsed Kamala," The Dabbler said at one point. But "I think it will be the least embarrassing path the Democrats can take.")

Also this! Why hadn't Barack Obama endorsed Harris yet? 

The Dabbler was asked, and the Dabbler answered:

"He might be chirping in Michelle's ear, Hey, this might be your time to run, which I don't really think is that far-fetched."

She didn't think it was that far-fetched! Later, Gutfeld himself advanced the idea that Hillary Clinton will be named as Candidate Harris' running mate.

He explicitly described the idea as his personal theory. Eventually, the ruminations about the possible running mate led to this excursion:

GUTFELD: Dr Drew, I don't think any VP will help her unless it's like a name.

PINSKY: I agree with you completely, but she might come up with somebody, right? This is going to seem maybe silly, but I don't understand—RFK is taking a certain percentage of the populace. Why doesn't someone try to cozy up to him?

It seems like that would be interesting. But would he be too far away from her platform?

Gutfeld said that didn't make sense. The Dabbler then offered this:

AUSTIN: I think Bobby's too presidential for that anyway. Her actually makes most sense out of any other Democrat I've seen—but Andrew Yang is very popular. He's very likable. I'm very surprised he wasn't on that list.

She can't believe that Yang isn't on the list! Meanwhile, Bobby makes the most sense, she said. But he's just too presidential!

(At no point were any actual names on the actual list ever actually mentioned. So it tends to go on this imitation of life.)

There's nothing morally wrong with seeming to know nothing at all about the imaginable shape of American party politics. That isn't a moral flaw. 

On the other hand, it might suggest that such people might not be good selections for an hour-long, primetime discussion of such important events.

It isn't the fault of the 23-year-old model and actress that she thinks the things she does. That said, she was also soon describing what had been said about her all day, and she was helping show why such things had been said:

("I've been called a conspiracy theorist all day," she said. She then proceeded to float the theory that had produced such rebukes.)

More on that tomorrow. Meanwhile, the wrestler spent the evening suggesting that "Dr. President Jill" was complicit in the assassination attempt, but also in the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. So it went as the Fox News Channel opened the garbage can.

"America is a stupid nation." So said Candidate Trump, yesterday, in a rally.  In large part thanks to his own efforts, he may have the germ of a point. 

What isn't stupid is the reasoning behind the nightly booking of these Usefuls as guests. They're released on the air to promote approved points, and that's what they reliably do.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but our nation's brain cells are under assault from grimy shows like Gutfeld!

Its angry host calls women names, especially when they're too fat. He says he hopes that Hunter and Jill aren't f*cking at this point.

When asked to pronounce a certain person's name correctly, he supplies his replacement: 

IDIOT.

The anger of the termagant makes him very stupid. But as this grimy little guy swings from trees in the manner described, propaganda is being pushed and Blue America's major thought leaders agree to avert their gaze.

Sacred Troy must die, noble Hector said. How about sacred America?

IDIOT, The Termagant said. As he angrily offered his thought, he was surrounded by USEFULS.

Tomorrow: Highly expert professional wrestler nails "Dr. President Jill"


We're puzzled because Anne Applebaum's puzzled!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2024

Applebaum listens to Trump: Anne Applebaum gives voice to the germ of a highly valid point in a recent essay for The Atlantic.

Her essay appears beneath the headlines shown below. The headlines do a decent job of stating her basic thesis:

Suddenly Trump Looks Older and More Deranged
Now the Republicans are the ones saddled with a candidate who can’t make a clear argument or finish a sentence.

It's true! President Biden's apparent decline was relatively easy to peg as some form of "dementia" or "senility"—more generally, as some familiar form of cognitive decline, of a type which often comes with advanced age.

Now that President Biden is out of the race, Candidate Trump is the candidate who's very old by historical standards. Also, he may perhaps seem to be "deranged," though his form of mental disorder has always seemed to be harder for mainstream journalists to name or report or describe.

What explains the crazy statements and crazy proposals Trump is inclined to make? On Monday, July 1, the New York Times reported the latest episode, one which struck us as remarkable:

Trump Amplifies Calls to Jail Top Elected Officials, Invokes Military Tribunals

Former President Donald J. Trump over the weekend escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians.

Mr. Trump, using his account on Truth Social on Sunday, promoted two posts from other users of the site that called for the jailing of his perceived political enemies.

One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.

“Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason,” the post said. “Retruth if you want televised military tribunals.”

Really? As president, Trump would want a televised military tribunal for Lynne Cheney? He had now "called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals?"

For various reasons, these apparent proposals may indeed seem "deranged." But the episode came and went with little attention from the mainstream press. For whatever reason, the mainstream press corps seems to lack a way to react to such crazy proposals.

For starters, just a guess:

In part, this reflects the refusal by the mainstream press to consult with medical or psychological specialists about Trump's mental and /or cognitive health. 

We've discussed this abdication of duty about a million times by now. For today, we'll leave it at this:

Our high-end career journalists aren't super-sharp. Beyond that, they aren't always super-honest. 

To appearances, they simply aren't willing to enter this dangerous conceptual territory. This leaves them with no obvious way to describe or report this man's apparent or possible madness.

In recent months, elements of the mainstream and Blue American press began behaving as if Trump's behavior was a mirror image of Biden's. You see that reflected in the headline atop Applebaum's essay, in which it's said that Donald J. Trump "can't finish a sentence."

We've seen Donald J. Trump finish plenty of sentences in the past few months! To some extent, that type of description seemed to go the heart of President Biden's apparent difficulties. The apparent madness of Donald J. Trump is a phenomenon of a different kind.

Having said that, we'll add this:

 We were puzzled to see that Applebaum was puzzled by certain excerpts from Trump's convention address. In her essay, she includes two brief excerpts from that endless speech which she describes as "pure gibberish."

After presenting the excerpts and describing them as gibberish, she says that Trump's "performance seemed deranged, sinister, and frightening." For now, we'll just tell you this:

The excerpts in question may (or may not) be viewed as borderline crazy. But the excerpts don't strike us as "gibberish" at all, let alone as gibberish of the pure kind.

(The fact that a major typo appears in one excerpt doesn't help Applebaum's case.)

The excerpts in questions may (or may not) be scored as borderline crazy—but why would Applebaum, an extremely important major writer, see them as gibberish? Tomorrow, we'll return to this topic, and we'll show you the excerpts in question.

In our view, something is wrong with Donald J. Trump. Also, something is keeping our major journalists from being able to say what it is—for being able to say what it is right out loud.

 

SACRED: There's nothing wrong with being 23!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2024

There's something bad wrong with this: There's nothing wrong with being 23. Almost everyone knows that.

There is something wrong with our failing American culture. Frequently, the elements of this cosmic dysfunction are almost wholly ignored.

So it was this Monday night, when the Fox News Channel aired its latest edition of the primetime "cable news" program, Gutfeld! 

There's nothing wrong with being 23, and almost everyone knows it. There's something cosmically wrong with this garbage can program—and it's one of the two or three most watched programs in all of "cable news."

We mention age for a reason. That night, the program's bosses had assembled the usual collection of flyweights to assist the program's termagant host in butchering the evening's familiar pseudo-discussions. 

There's nothing wrong with being 23! Under the circumstances, something that's wrong may be lurking within this recent profile in the New York Post:

Meet Emily Austin, the social media star behind DAZN’s Devin Haney-Ryan Garcia promotion

For a fight between two boxing stars—Devin Haney vs. Ryan Garcia Saturday night at Barclays Center—who are so active on social media, DAZN added a social media star to help in its broadcast and promotion. 

Emily Austin, a sports and entertainment host who has recently begun dabbling in political commentary as well, was recently announced as DAZN’s social presenter throughout fight week.

She was featured on multiple DAZN social channels, interviewing a plethora of the biggest figures around the fight. 

Few in media have as large of a following as Austin, which she has now brought to one of the most anticipated fights of the year. A host of her own “Hoop Chat” podcast, a Miss Universe judge and owner of her own “People’s Beauty” skincare company, Austin has 2.1 million followers on Instagram and 512.8K followers on TikTok.

[...]

Originally focused on sports, particularly basketball and the NBA, Austin has recently delved into politics. 

She is an ardent pro-Israel activist, and has been outspoken since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and has even met with former hostages who were released. She’s become a regular guest on “Gutfeld!” and has plans to launch her own political show on various social media platforms. 

There's nothing wrong with being 23. At least in theory, there's nothing wrong with being "a sports and entertainment host," or with being the owner of your own skincare company.

At least in theory, and in most contexts, there's nothing wrong with any of that! At least in theory, there may be something wrong with employing the person described in that April 20 profile in the way the Fox News Channel now does.

Emily Austin, 23, isn't just "a sports and entertainment host." (For the record, she's also a model and actress, according to the leading authority on her career). 

It isn't just sports and entertainment! At age 23, Austin has also "begun dabbling in political commentary," according to the profile in the Post. 

As the profile notes, that largely refers to the fact she has become a regular guest on The Channel's Gutfeld! program, one of the most disordered programs in the history of TV news.

Austin made her latest appearance this past Monday night. Before we start to show you where that went, let's go back to the beginning.

According to that profile in the Post, Austin was recently announced as DAZN’s "social presenter," whatever that is, for an upcoming "fight between two boxing stars."

That said, does anyone know what DAZN is? As it turns out, The Shadow knows—and The Shadow tells us this:

DAZN

DAZN (pronounced "da zone") is a British over-the-top sports streaming and entertainment platform. Founded in 2007 as Perform Group via the merger of Premium TV Limited and Inform Group, it is owned by Access Industries, the investment group founded by Sir Len Blavatnik, and is headquartered in London, England...

The DAZN platform was founded in 2015 and broadcasts live and on-demand sport in over 200 countries worldwide with a strong domestic presence in Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan, France, Portugal, Belgium, Taiwan, the United States and Canada, where it has key domestic broadcast rights. It is considered to be Europe's largest digital sports broadcaster with over 75 programming rights. As of 2023, the service has 20 million paid subscribers globally.

Outside of streaming, DAZN has since expanded into in-play betting, gaming, e-commerce, merchandise and ticketing...

According to that leading authority, DAZN isn't just a "sports streaming and entertainment platform." It's an over-the-top streaming platform, whatever that may mean. 

In theory, there's nothing wrong with any of the additional material in that thumbnail profile. Indeed, betting and gaming have become increasingly large components of American sports culture.

At any rate, there we see what DAZN is. As for Austin herself, she has hired on to be a presenter—and she has recently begun to dabble in politics, for example on the Gutfeld! program.

Also this:

Thanks to the democratization of media, Austin has plans to launch her own political show on various social media platforms.  At any rate, there she was, this past Monday night, seated as part of the four-member Gutfeld! panel. 

Let it further be said that, as judged by conventional norms, the model and actress is highly telegenic. Also, as we've already mentioned, she's 23 years old.

Full disclosure! You don't have to be a telegenic young woman to serve on a Gutfeld! panel! Austin shared air this enchanted evening with Dr. Drew Pinsky, a 65-year-old (male) "American media personality" and the former host of the Loveline TV program.

Full disclosure! Pinsky's commentary this evening was almost as fatuous as that which was offered by Austin. There's nothing wrong with being 23, or even with being 65. But there's something bad wrong with the moral garbage can and the journalistic gong show The Channel cracked open this night.

With apologies, we're going to wait until tomorrow to start to show you what was said on Monday's evening's program. Spoiler alert:

The journalistic content arrived in a Volkswagen bus which was crowded with clowns. The moral content may have been worse.

As we showed you yesterday, the program opened with what has become a standard theme for the program's 59-year-old bad boy host. The program began with what has become his nightly joke about Hunter Biden trying to "date" his stepmother. 

In yesterday's report, we transcribed the content of Monday night's joke. Last night, the 59-year-old man with the mountain of rage visited the theme again, two minutes into his program. 

Citizens, there he went again! Last night, his sally was substantially edgier. Here's what the termagant said:

GUTFELD (7/23/24): Speaking of Jill, where's she been, huh? And come to think of it, where's Hunter? 

Hmmmmm.

[AUDIENCE CHUCKLES, GROANS]

I hope they're not [BLEEP]ing.

[AUDIENCE ROARS]

(Feigning incomprehension) What? I mean—

Just hoping! It's a good hope!

"Didn't see that one coming, did ya?" the humorist now wonderfully said.

Each person can assess the suitability of this latest sally by this show's irrepressible host. For the record, the fact that his verb was BLEEPed by The Channel suggests to us that this is what he actually said to his shrieking studio audience:

GUTFELD: Speaking of Jill, where's she been, huh? And come to think of it, where's Hunter? 

Hmmmmm.

[AUDIENCE CHUCKLES, GROANS]

I hope they're not f*cking.

[AUDIENCE ROARS]

(Feigning incomprehension) What?...

We'll assume that's what he actually said—in his program's second minute! But this is becoming a standard theme. It's becoming the way he now kickstarts his program on a nightly basis.

We each can assess that as we will. It seems to us that this turn in American journalistic culture is worth recording for the sake of posterity.

Last week, we recorded, for posterity, the behavior of five employees on a Fox & Friends Weekend program. This week, we think it's worth recording some of what happened on Monday evening's Gutfeld!

Each citizen can assess the suitability of that early jest. In all honesty, there can be little doubt about the subsequent journalistic content of Monday evening's program.

Full disclosure: Gutfeld! is a primetime nightly program on the nation's most watched "news channel." For purposes of corporate misdirection, it's masqueraded as a "comedy show" on that "cable news" channel. 

In reality, Gutfeld! is a propaganda program—a program whose guests will push the Fox News Channel's political scripts with stunning fidelity, but also with astonishing dumbness.

Emily Austin, age 23, has begun to dabble in politics. Dr Drew, age 65, was the longtime Loveline host.

On Monday night, they were joined by a 400-pound former professional wrestler and by a comedian who is cast as the program's more thoughtful "libertarian." All such players seem to know that they're being paid by Fox to promulgate ownership's scripts

Why was Austin on that program? Tomorrow, we'll force ourselves to start to show you some you some of the things she said. Her political dabbling was astoundingly bad on this particular evening. Pinsky's dabbling wasn't much better, and for sheer unvarnished dumbness, Gutfeld himself came close to taking the cake.

Conspiracy theories were floating about, most of them involving the imagined machinations of "Dr. President Jill." This program is a braincell-devouring moral cesspool, night after night after night. 

"Sacred Troy must die," Hector of the shining helmet once quite famously said. He delivered this prophecy to Andromache, his generous wife.

As our own sacred culture continues to die, the people who went to the finer schools agree not to notice or comment.

Has the first lady been BLEEPing her son? Over there, on the Fox News Channel, telegenic young people are dabbling in news and inquiring minds want to know.

Tomorrow: Yes, it was really this stupid


Can Candidate Harris win this election?

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2024

Some reasons to harbor some doubts: Can Kamala Haris win this election?

She'll be running against the craziest person ever nominated for the job. But here's what the New York Times' Bret Stephens tells Gail Collins today as part of their weekly Conversation:

Can Kamala Harris Step Up? Asking for a Friend.

[...]

Gail: Kamala Harris is [Biden's] vice president who’s served him well and loyally. Not to endorse her would be a real diss. And given the fact that we’re only talking about weeks until the nomination, it’s hard to imagine a rebellion. None of those other talented, qualified Democrats are standout stars who’d be obvious alternatives.

Bret:  You may be right, but if that’s true, I think we can say hello to President Trump right now. Harris is an even weaker candidate than Biden. Not that I’ll vote for Trump, but I don’t think I can vote for her.

[...] 

I’m happy to vote for a middle-of-the-road, seasoned Democrat, even when I disagree on many issues—that’s why I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and for Biden in 2020. I could gladly vote for Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear or Wes Moore, among other promising Democratic possibilities. But I won’t vote for just any Democrat at all on the theory that definitionally they’re all better than Trump. I don’t believe that. And I don’t believe that Trump means the end of democracy or civilization or life on Earth. 

Stephens has been anti-Trump, going all the way back. He says he would vote for Whitmer, Shapiro, Beshear or Moore—but he says he won't vote for Harris, and he says there are other anti-Trump voters who think the same way he does.

That doesn't mean that Harris can't win. As we've noted, she'll be running against the most disordered person who ever won a major party's nomination.

That said, the Democratic Party and the media moguls of Blue America have never quite managed to zero in on the apparent madness of this particular candidate.

The upper-class cable stars of our own Blue America have proven to be world-class experts at the ancient task of speaking to no one but themselves. In this case, that means the "dear friends" and "beloved colleagues" with whom they serve in the cable news army, their "favorite reporters and friends."

They focused on trying to LOCK HIM UP, endlessly pimping a Gotham trial which was so shaky that Governor Cuomo recently said the whole darn thing was a con. 

They spoke and thought about nothing else, month after month after month. Vast swaths of the electorate stopped listening to them a long time ago, except when clips of their more-than-occasional lunacies are played on the Fox News Channel for purposes of derision and tribal amusement. 

Meanwhile, Harris will be saddled with certain parts of the Biden legacy. We assume it's absurd to think that she was somehow "the border czar"—that she was somehow responsible for the administration's policies, such as they were, at the southern border.

That said, she was saddled with the claim, or at least with the impression, that she actually was some such potentate. For the reason why this may serve as an anvil around her neck, we recommend Kevin Drum's new post, which appears beneath this headline:

Liberal and conservative myths about illegal immigration

One of Kevin's "liberal myths" is shown below. Candidate Harris is going to have to negotiate this:

Liberal myths

Myth: "Crisis" talk is just conservative scaremongering.

Reality: Illegal immigration has skyrocketed under Joe Biden. Both Obama and Trump averaged about 35,000 migrants per month. Biden has averaged nearly 200,000 per month.

For the record, it wasn't just the much larger numbers; it was also The Silence. As those numbers grew and grew, the situation was widely discussed—except by Blue America's solipsistic media stars and of course by President Biden.

On its face, the situation seemed to be crazy—but the president maintained a silence to rival the silence of God in Bergman's Seventh Seal. That was the president's dereliction, but Candidate Harris will now be forced to explain it.

For the record, the remarkable silence of President Biden extended to other areas of concern. That included widespread concern about the cost of living, as distinct from the current rate of inflation. 

We'll assume that he may have maintained his astonishing silence because it would have been increasingly difficult for him to engage in normal presidential discourse, a problem which finally seemed to become apparent on June 27. Some such possible disability is, of course, no one's "fault."

That said—however that matter is assessed, his silence was vast and deafening. That makes it especially repulsive to read the kind of hagiography churned by Jon Meacham in today's New York Times, where he ladles such foofaw as this:

Joe Biden, My Friend and an American Hero

[...]

Mr. Biden has spent a lifetime trying to do right by the nation, and he did so in the most epic of ways when he chose to end his campaign for re-election. His decision is one of the most remarkable acts of leadership in our history, an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington, who also stepped away from the presidency. To put something ahead of one’s immediate desires—to give, rather than to try to take—is perhaps the most difficult thing for any human being to do. And Mr. Biden has done just that.

To be clear: Mr. Biden is my friend, and it has been a privilege to help him when I can. Not because I am a Democrat—I belong to neither party and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans—but because I believe him to be a defender of the Constitution and a public servant of honor and of grace at a time when extreme forces threaten the nation. I do not agree with everything he has done or wanted to do in terms of policy. But I know him to be a good man, a patriot and a president who has met challenges all too similar to those Abraham Lincoln faced.

Did President Biden decide to sacrifice power in the manner of President Washington? Or did he hang on in hiding for months on end, deceiving the public and maintaining a silence until hiding was no longer possible?

We don't know the answer to that—and when people start to lose their mental faculties, they may lose the ability to realize that they've lost their mental faculties. So it went, for example, with Lear.

That said, President Biden only stepped aside when it became fairly clear that he had no other option. That doesn't mean that he's a bad person—it means he's a person person.

It means he's a person person! It doesn't mean that he made some sort of astounding sacrifice, as Washington once did.

We've always liked Meacham for his good sense of humor, but he was a hagiographer for President Bush the elder, and he plays the same role for President Biden now. The silly bad judgment on display in his piece has been widespread across Blue America's journalistic elites, helping bring our flailing nation to this astonishing place.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we aren't an especially brilliant species, not even Over Here in Blue America, where the children and journalists are all above average and the colleagues are all beloved. Sadly, as our leaders have formed this silly cult, they've dropped that same bomb on The Others.

Will Candidate Harris be able to win this election? She's running again the craziest candidate in American history, so at least there's that.

That said, she doesn't seem to be a giant political talent, in the manner of a Reagan, a Bill Clinton or an Obama. 

As we've noted in the past, almost no one is! We hope she finds her way through, though it sounds like Stephens may have been lost.


RAGE: Her emergence was cause for hope...

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2024

...except on the Gutfeld! program: "I still believe in a place called Hope," Candidate Bill Clinton said.

In one sense, the candidate was referring to his small hometown in southwestern Arkansas. In a larger sense, he was sketching a stance with respect to his large, sprawling nation and with respect to its place in the world.

"I still believe in Joe Biden," Mika Brzezinski said on Morning Joe in the immediate aftermath of the June 27 debate. By that time, we ourselves no longer held such belief. 

Most specifically, we no longer believed in President Biden as a candidate for re-election. For the record, our concerns about this important political figure didn't end there.

At any rate, we no longer believed in President Biden as a candidate for re-election. We'd been actively concerned since last August. We'd been surprised when his campaign agreed to that early debate. 

On the evening of June 27, our concern almost seemed prophetic. In truth, we hadn't pictured anything as bad as the performance we all watched that night.

In our view, President Biden's better angels were back on display in his various statements of the past several days. It was good to see them back.

Yesterday afternoon, President Biden was emotionally generous and full of hope when he spoke with Candidate Harris by telephone, in a public conversation everyone could hear. As for Candidate Harris herself, her emergence as her party's presumptive nominee has given us cause for hope.

In the course of the next few days, we expect to discuss what we see as the possible strengths and weaknesses of that new candidacy. That said, while we felt a resurgence of hope, elsewhere we saw the vulgar, coarse and stupid by-products of the ancient emotion called rage.

Most specifically, we're talking about what we saw last night, in the 10 o'clock hour, when we watched the latest edition of the Fox News Channel's Gutfeld! program.

Briefly, let's be clear! To our eye and ear, the rage to which we refer belonged to the program's host alone. We'd classify his four guests in a somewhat different manner.

At least two famous phrases come to mind when we think about the performances of last evening's guests. Rather than traffic in such unpleasant terms, we'll merely post the roster of the people the Fox News Channel assembled last night, allegedly for the purpose of discussing the nation's news.

Our capsule bios of these unmistakable flyweights are largely drawn from the leading authority on their lives and their careers:

Cast of Gutfeld! TV show: July 22, 2024

Emily Austin: 23-year-old model and actress. A judge at Miss Universe 2022. "Now working with DAZN on their boxing coverage."

Tyrus: American cable news personality, actor, and former professional wrestler. Now performs as a comedian.

Kat Timpf: Performs as a comedian. Is cast and performs as the Gutfeld! program's somewhat more thoughtful "libertarian."

Dr. Drew Pinsky: Formerly, co-host of the MTV program Loveline. "Between February and March 2020, Pinsky made a series of statements concerning the COVID-19 outbreak where he downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, stating that it was not as bad as the flu, and suggested that it was a 'press-induced panic.' "

The Fox News Channel assembled that group to discuss, or to pretend to discuss, the presidential campaign. Last night, this produced an imitation of discourse which veered between alarmingly ugly and just plain deeply stupid. 

We wouldn't say that those participants displayed the emotion known as rage in the various things they said. We would describe the program's host as being saddled with that emotion.

Greg Gutfeld, the program's host, is a 59-year-old man who performs as a comedian. In our view, he gives voice to many perfectly valid complaints about the conduct of the Biden administration, and about the values and the behaviors of the liberal / progressive world.

(On balance, you may not agree with his complaints, but we'd frequently score them as valid. Embarrassingly, some of his specific complains are just plain factually accurate.)

Many of the host's complaints strike us as uncomfortably valid. That said, his reasonable complaints are routinely swamped by his ugly, unrelenting state of rage.

In the course of the next few days, we'll plan to show you some of the things which were said last night. We'll likely start with the rage-filled host—with the jokes with which he started his show, such tasteful jokes as these:

GUTFELD (7/22/24): The only question that remains now for the Biden family is this:

Does Joe's dementia mean that Hunter can ask Jill out?

[AUDIENCE GROANS]

It's always there.

And finally, it's been pointed out that Biden dropped out on National Ice Cream Day. 

Even more ironic, it is also National Crap Your Pants Day.

[LAUGHTER] 

All right! Let's do a monologue!

With that, at 10:03 p.m., the opening jokes reached a merciful end. From there, the termagant proceeded to stage a series of pseudo-discussions with his flyweight guests.

The Fox News Channel opens this can at 10 p.m. every night. The host of the program gives voice to his rage, but also to his apparent old-school misogyny. 

In turn, his guests produce the stupidest pseudo-discussions available on the planet. As this intellectual and moral garbage is broadcast to millions of people, the timorous players in Blue America politely avert their gaze.

Last night's pseudo-discussions were about as stupid as alleged public discourse gets. The guests floated many suggestions. You might call them "conspiracy theories."

You might refer to their insinuations as "conspiracy theories!" Conspiracy theories about the recent assassination attempt. Conspiracy theories about what must have led to President Biden's decision to withdraw from the race.

Conspiracy theories about the machinations which must be occurring within the Biden/Harris camp. Conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, who may become Candidate Harris' running-mate!

You can't get dumber than these people are. Presumably, no one is dumber than Austin was last night, but Pinsky came amazingly close.

The guests are "useful," if you know what we mean—but they're also "enablers." Behind them lies the corporate entity which uses such flyweights as tools.

Wrestlers and models and Gutfeld oh my! Meanwhile, in Blue America, the finer people at our finest news orgs agree to avert their gaze.

The Iliad helps us see where human rage can lead. We may post the relevant prose again in the course of the next few days.

Candidate Harris has given us hope. Then too, we have the rage of the Gutfeld! program, and of various other players—and we have the endless silence from Blue America's brightest and finest and best.


Commenter makes sagacious remark!

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2024

TV giant doesn't: A commenter to Kevin Drum's most recent post makes a sagacious remark. Just for the record, Drum's headline says this:

Kamala Harris will poll as well as Biden by next week

For ourselves, we hope she'll be polling better than President Biden by next week and will continue upward from there. Given Trump's "unelectable" status, we can't say that such things are impossible.

That said, back to the sagacious remark:

The sagacious observation in question comes in the midst of a longer discussion. For current purposes, the larger context doesn't matter. The highlighted observation does:

COMMENTER (7/22/24): And we suffer their argument precisely because Democrats failed to make the case that Trump has long been lacking in cognitive capability, is a ranting, raving, usually incoherent person demonstrating his lunacy during all hours, but keeping amazingly ludicrous tweets going through the night into early-morning hours. He could not have managed the presidential duties these past four years.

It's true! Democrats have failed to make that case about the apparent cognitive state of former president Trump. So have Blue America's thought leaders, including those we see every day on Blue America's cable news channel.

Kids say the darnedest things, Art Linkletter famously said. For years, former president Trump has said—and has frequently seemed to believe—the stone-cold craziest things. He has said, and has possibly seemed to believe, such crazy things down through the years.

That was especially true in the aftermath of the November 2020 election, when he surrounded himself with the craziest people found on the planet, with many associates—including many former associates who had turned against him—insisting that, at best they could tell, he actually believed his various ludicrous claims.

Why have a variety of entities—upper-end mainstream press corps included—"failed to [examine the possibility] that Trump has long been lacking in cognitive capability?" 

You're asking an excellent question! To some extent, the answer may involve this:

Blue America has reveled in the decision to brand Trump a LIAR. When the upper-end press corps walked away from its previous (well-founded) restrictions of the use of such terms, they were praised for the courage of their (ill-advised) decision.

Here was one (and only one) of the problems with that decision:

If Trump is just telling a bunch of LIES, there's nothing wrong with his cognition. By definition, a LIAR knows what he's doing when he tells a LIE. 

He's saying something he knows is untrue in the belief that he can fool the people he's targeting. There's nothing wrong with a liar's cognition. There's something bad wrong with his ethics.

For many liberals, it has felt amazingly good to refer to Donald Trump's LIES. In our view, the decision to start trafficking in such claims was a very poor decision on the part of the upper-end press.

There are several reasons for that judgment, but the commenter's sagacious observation starts to hit upon one. Once you've decided to show your courage by branding crazy statements as LIES, you've much wiped away the possibility that the author of the crazy statements has gone crazy nuts in the head.

In our view, Trump's cognition has always been in question. Long ago, journalists should have interviewed (carefully selected) medical specialists with regard to the crazy claims Trump and his nuttier colleagues have persistently made.

In our view, also this:

Just from a political standpoint, it's much more effective to say that someone is making "absurd misstatements" that it is to say that he's LYING. That's especially true when the people making the accusation are quite routinely making inaccurate statements themselves.

Is something wrong with Donald J. Trump's cognition? If we remember correctly, some of the medical specialists in Dr. Bandy X. Lee's best-selling book questioned Trump's cognitive status as well as his apparent psychiatric disorders. 

That said, sad! Our journalists have insisted, to this very day, that subjects like these cannot be discussed. They decided to brandish their L-bombs instead.

In our view, that decision was unwise on the journalistic merits. Also, we'd say that it has been unhelpful on a political basis.

The commenter made a sagacious remark. Yesterday, in the New York Times, Aaron Sorkin didn't.

We'd say his suggestion was silly and sad. So was the fact that the New York Times decided to publish the column he offered. More, perhaps, on the morrow.


US, CLAUDIUS: We're pulling for Candidate Harris now!

MONDAY, JULY 22, 2024

How to pronounce her first name: As of Saturday morning, two famous fictional persons headlined the White House campaign.

The Democrats were going to nominate Lear. The Republicans had already nominated Agamemnon, lord of men.

In the Iliad, Agamemnon is the warrior / commander who stands anointed by God. He holds the royal scepter which tracks back directly to Zeus. 

Despite his endless emotional meltdowns and his propensity to explosions of rage, this establishes him as "lord of men" among the poem's Achaeans.

Starting in Book 1 in this poem of war, his explosive rage and his emotional breakdowns drive large parts of the action. Highly capable seasoned lieutenants—especially Nestor, the seasoned charioteer—keep intervening to rescue him from his madness, his lack of stability.

As of last Thursday night, the GOP had nominated Agamemnon, and he had accepted their nomination. It was widely believed, within that party, that he was under the special protection of God—even of "our lord and savior Jesus Christ," or so five friends had scored the matter on the Fox News Channel.

As of last Thursday night, the GOP had officially chosen Agamemnon. As of Saturday morning, we Democrats still seemed to be saddled with our own King Lear.

At age 81 (and with 82 fast approaching), it had become fairly clear that his faculties were now diminished. Also, it seemed fairly clear that a fairly substantial attempt had been made to keep this news from the public. 

This apparent effort started coming undone with his disastrous performance at the June 27 debate. But as with the fictional king who once raged across the moors, it seemed that our candidate might not be able to recognize the basic facts concerning his personal and political situations.

Yesterday afternoon, President Biden withdrew from the race. At this site, this leaves us praying that Kamala Harris will build a winning campaign.

Tens of millions of our fellow citizens disagree with our assessment concerning this year's election.  Needless to say, they have every right to their views. They remain our neighbors and friends.

That said, we ourselves are hoping that Candidate Harris will prevail. Surely, though, there is one point on which we can all agree:

Can we all agree on one point? Can we agree that the time has come when we comically hapless human beings should learn how to pronounce this candidate's first name?

Kamala Haris has been vice president of the United States for almost four years now. In 2109, she wrote a book in which, among other things, she explained how to pronounce her name.

The book was called The Truths We Hold: An American Journey. As you can see in the publisher's excerpt, one of those truths was this:

An Excerpt from The Truths We Hold by Kamala Harris

[...] 

This book is not meant to be a policy platform, much less a fifty-point plan. Instead, it is a collection of ideas and viewpoints and stories, from my life and from the lives of the many people I’ve met along the way.

Just two more things to mention before we get started:

First, my name is pronounced “comma-la,” like the punctuation mark. It means “lotus flower,” which is a symbol of significance in Indian culture. A lotus grows underwater, its flower rising above the surface while its roots are planted firmly in the river bottom.

And second, I want you to know how personal this is for me. This is the story of my family. It is the story of my childhood. It is the story of the life I have built since then. You’ll meet my family and my friends, my colleagues and my team. I hope you will cherish them as I do and, through my telling, see that nothing I have ever accomplished could have been done on my own.

Perhaps a tiny bit whimsically, Harris started by telling us the people how to pronounce her first name. Given the blinding stupidity of our discourse, this basic lesson remains largely unlearned today, even at the highest levels.

How stupid is our American discourse? How childish are many of the major players within our American discourse?

Concerning the childishness and the stupidity, please consider this:

As of the summer of 2020, Senator Harris had been chosen as the Democratic Party's nominee for vice president. At that point, it occurred to some observers that we the people should possibly learn how to pronounce her first name.

To her credit, Kate Sullivan gave it a try. In August 2020, she published a column for CNN's web site which appeared beneath this headline:

It’s ‘comma-la’: How to pronounce Kamala Harris’ name

Sullivan tried to let everyone know how to pronounce that name. Given the childishness of some of our nation's "thought leaders," she might as well have tried to catch the wind. 

Knowing how to pronounce that name was hard! It's also p[osisble that some major players didn't much want to be bothered.

One week later, Steven Petrow wrote a column on the same subject for USA Today. Petrow pushed a bit harder than Sullivan had. For our money, he may have gotten a tiny bit huffy.

Still, he too laid out the basic facts. Headline included, his column started like this:

Kamala Harris' name isn't difficult to pronounce. There's no excuse for getting it wrong.

I’m a pretty chill guy and I know my last name isn’t the easiest to pronounce, like many immigrant names. I appreciate it when people ask me how to say it and I’ll tell them, it’s “PEH-trow” not “PEE-trow.” Often I’ll correct someone who mispronounces it—once or twice, maybe a third—always with a smile. But if they continue to call me “PEE-trow,” it’s pretty obvious that that they’re either not listening or just don’t care. Either way, it’s a sign of disrespect.

Speaking of disrespect, the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson got hot under the collar last week when Richard Goodstein, a Democratic strategist, corrected his mispronunciation of Sen. Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee. Goodstein explained to Carlson that Harris’ name “is pronounced ‘comma'—like the punctuation mark—'la.' Comma-la.” He added, “Out of respect, for somebody who’s going to be on the national ticket, pronouncing her name right is actually kind of a bare minimum.”

Carlson, whose name is easy to pronounce because it’s both familiar and Anglo-Saxon, didn’t take it in stride and respond with, “Thanks for letting me know that.” Instead, he volleyed back, “So what?” and then lashed out saying, “So I’m disrespecting her by mispronouncing her name unintentionally?”

"So what?" Tucker replied. Last week, there he was, in Milwaukee, hobnobbing with Agamemnon in the person of Donald J. Trump.

For our money, Petrow was perhaps a bit huffy all through the course of his column. He adopted a bit of the scolding tone which has become a distinguishing characteristic of Blue America's tribal culture—a cultural characteristic which has almost surely caused substantial political harm.

That said, Petrow captured the petulant, childish reaction of one of our nation's major thought leaders at that point in time. There was Carlson, in effect defending his right to mispronounce Harris' name! 

As of last Saturday morning, there were two unelectable candidates in the race—their Agamemnon, our Lear. One of the two has now left the race—but can Candidate Harris prevail?

Also this! Given the sheer stupidity of our culture, will multimillionaire TV stars ever be willing and able to correctly pronounce her first name? 

We start today with that utterly silly point. As the week proceeds, we'll move on to matters which are a bit more substantial.

As we do, we'll be thinking of two other fictionalized historical figures. We'll be thinking of the Roman emperor Claudius—and we'll be thinking of Livia, murderous grandmother to this Roman god.

Robert Graves explored these historical figures in two acclaimed novels of the 1930s—I, Claudius (1934), followed by Claudius the God (1935). 

In 1976, the BBC adapted the novels in a major, 13-episode TV series. In this country, the series became a very big deal when PBS aired it as part of its Masterpiece Theater franchise.

The series portrayed a thoroughly novelized public discourse—a discourse in which the people of imperial Rome were fed a never-ending series of novelized accounts of the actual power plays controlling access to the imperial throne.

In real life, Claudius, who spoke with a persistent stammer, "was the fourth Emperor of the Roman Empire, from AD 41 to 54." What was his grandmother like in real life?

We can't necessarily tell you that! But in the fictionalized narratives penned by Graves, Livia liked to poison her rivals. Perhaps more strikingly, she was skilled at misleading the public about the power plays which determined control of the throne. 

Fictitious stories drive much of our discourse today. In that sense, we're all Claudius now!

Our candidate's challenging name to the side, these fictitions come from all major sides. Even as we seek the best ways to root for our new candidate, we'll examine some of these fictitions this week.

Tomorrow: Sandra Smith and her own lying' eyes


SUNDAY: President Johnson withdrew from the race!

SUNDAY, JULY 21, 2024

As has President Biden: We had come to think more poorly of President Biden over the course of the past year.

The reasons can be listed at some later date. For today, his announcement that he will be stepping aside took us all the way back to our junior year in college.

On the evening of March 31, 1968, we sat in the Dunster House TV room, watching President Johnson's scheduled speech about Vietnam. As recalled in an NPR report (from 2018), here's what happened that night:

Remembering 1968: LBJ Surprises Nation With Announcement He Won't Seek Re-Election

[...]

He spoke of a pause in the massive bombing campaign that was devastating much of communist North Vietnam and portions of embattled South Vietnam, where the U.S. was defending an anti-communist regime.

Johnson's speech was his most earnest plea yet to be taken seriously as a peacemaker. He meant that plea to be validated by the closing statement he had chosen to include that night. Instead, that statement caught the nation by surprise, shattered the political landscape and utterly overshadowed the rest of the speech.

"With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office—the presidency of this country," Johnson intoned, looking earnestly into the camera lens.

Tens of millions of viewers suddenly came to full attention. What did he just say? What could that mean?

We recall coming to full attention. Here's what President Johnson said next:

"Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

The announcement was a total surprise.  We believe a few cheers went up in the TV room. 

Four days later, Dr. King was shot and killed. Senator Kennedy was shot and killed two months and two days after that.

President Johnson's announcement that night was a complete surprise. Almost surely, cheers went up in the TV room. At that time, cheers would go up during the evening news any time Walter Cronkite announced that the Dow Jones average had gone down.

For ourselves, we recall feeling sorry for President Johnson that night. Despite the shrinking regard we'd come to have for President Biden and his family and his team, we also feel sorry for President Biden today. 

While we're at it, also this:

We recommend feeling sorry for the child who suffered the "childhood traumas" referred to by Usha Vance during Wednesday night's convention speech. 

Earlier today, we watched an hour-long, C-Span interview from September 2017. On that C-Span videotape, David Rubinstein interviews the author of Hillbilly Elegy about the contents of his widely acclaimed book, including the circumstances in which he grew up.

The author who spoke with Rubinstein that day was good-humored, smart and personable. As we watched that tape today, we wondered how the child who suffered those childhood traumas had become that apparently calm and balanced man. 

We also wondered how that apparently calm and balanced man had become the J. D. Vance of today. We aren't going to vote for Vance, but we do know how to feel sorry for the classic "motherless child."

In the past, we've even recommended pity for Donald J. Trump, who was born to a father who has been described, by one of his grandchildren, as a sociopath. 

We recommend pity for any child born to such a person. In the current circumstance, we also recommend political defeat for the disordered adult that unfortunate child became.

As of this morning, it seemed that our own Blue America hadn't found the way to defeat Candidate Trump. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens disagree with our assessment of that "disordered" man, as is their perfect right.

It also seemed that we Blues are incapable of imagining that some of the fault in our stunningly bad political performance could possibly lie with us.

The search for Candidate Biden's replacement starts right now. Needless to say, Candidate Trump may get him locked up.

Trying to get the guy locked up, while ignoring almost everything else!

We recommend C-Span's Hillbilly Elegy tape! We wouldn't vote for the current version of Vance, but we recommend pity for the traumatized child who arrived here before the grown man.


SATURDAY: AOC has been flashing white power signs...

SATURDAY, JULY 20, 2024

...and climate change is a hoax: This past Tuesday, USA Today filed a report about a relatively minor apparent effect of ongoing climate change.

For the record, the report assumes the truth of a fairly obvious fact. It assumes the fact that climate change is actually occurring. 

As recent events may seem to suggest, climate change is actually happening! (Unless you're paid by Fox.) At any rate, here's what USA Today's news report said, headline included:

Climate change is making days (a little) longer, study says

Two new scientific studies suggest that global warming is changing the rotation of the Earth and is also increasing the length of day "at an unprecedented rate."

Here's what's happening: As the planet heats up, ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting, and this water from the polar regions is flowing into the world’s oceans–and especially into the equatorial region. This is changing the Earth's shape and thus slowing its speed of rotation.

“This means that a shift in mass is taking place, and this is affecting the Earth’s rotation,” explained co-author Benedikt Soja of the Swiss University ETH Zurich, in a statement.

Thus, as the Earth is turning more slowly, the days are getting longer, albeit only minimally, on the order of a few milliseconds a day. But it's potentially enough to affect GPS, communications and even space travel.

And so on from there. For the transcript of an NPR discussion of this same topic, you can just click here.

So it went as major news orgs reported these new studies. Below, we're going to show you the way the circus clowns on the Gutfeld! program reacted to USA Today's report.

Welcome to the American Babel! More specifically, welcome to the American Babel in our failing nation's destructive era of journalistic "segregation by viewpoint." 

For the reactions from the Gutfeld! program's boatload of fools, we invite you to keep reading. First, though, we want to report what AOC has "shockingly" done.

"Shockingly," AOC has been caught flashing a white power sign! For that, we'll visit the gang on Fox & Friends Weekend, this very morning:

Fox & Friends Weekend, this morning:

This very morning—credit where due!—Will Cain came fighting back.

Within the past week, it had been said that Cain is the mildest of the three friends who co-host Fox & Friends Weekend. 

As perhaps with Steve Doocy something like a month ago, so too possibly here! When Fox News employees get tagged as soft, they have to come fighting back.

So it may have happened today, early in the 7 o'clock hour:

The friends were discussing a recent TikTok video posted by AOC. In the video, AOC criticizes fellow Democrats for failing to go on the record when they say that President Biden should abandon his White House campaign. 

(For ourselves, we'd criticize AOC for doing what so many do. We'd criticize her for acting like there's only one way—hers!—to assess this complex situation.)

Back to this morning's show! After Rachel and Pete had spent kicked AOC around a bit, Will jumped into the fray with this peculiar statement:

CAIN (7/20/24): She shockingly flashed a white power symbol throughout that video. I don't know what she was trying to get—we had a national reckoning about that years ago. Many people were fired. Many people were kicked out of Wrigley Field.

Say what? Rep. Ocasio-Cortez had been flashing a white power sign?

To us, that sounded unlikely. But "knowing how way leads on to way," we assumed we'd find the source of Cain's claim in a quick search online. 

Sure enough! There it was, the latest dispatch from Our Modern American Babel. Some nutcases at some of the nuttier outposts have been pimping this claim online. 

This morning, Cain took the claim and he ran. He was now the nuttiest friend—the one who was driving the clowncar!

Was AOC flashing white power signs in her TikTok post? Cain didn't attempt to explain what he meant. He made no attempt to offer evidence in support of his puzzling claim. 

He simply floated the puzzling claim—took the bullroar and ran. Inevitably, the other two stooges were eager to help. Rachel Campos-Duffy, who's enormously genial but truly believes, quickly jumped in with this:

CAIN: She shockingly flashed a white power symbol throughout that video. I don't know what she was trying to get—we had a national reckoning about that years ago. Many people were fired. Many people were kicked out of Wrigley Field.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: You can be sure she won't be.

AOC won't be kicked out of Wrigley Field! With that standard bow to tribal resentment, the trio of friends moved on. 

Welcome to the American Babel, where every claim of this type is true, and no inanity gets left behind

The Gutfeld! program, last night:

With that, we return to last night's Gutfeld! program. 

As usual, The Savage Chimp opened with his standard array of ugly jokes about those with whom he disagrees. Nancy Pelosi doesn't look right in a bikini these days, this sick little nutcase instantly said. 

Eventually, he started pretending to conduct discussions of actual issues. Midway through the program, he introduced that article from USA Today as the starting point for a segment.

You may recall what the headline said. The headline in question said this:

Climate change is making days (a little) longer, study says

That news report was the basis for the pseudo-discussion which ensued. After describing the finding of the study, he threw to Charly Arnholt to start the pseudo-discussion.

Arnholt is conventionally attractive, and she's still young enough. Like other guests on this prime time "news program," she's also a genuine flyweight.

Beyond that, she's paid to behave in the ways she behaves. With USA Today's headline shown on the screen, here's how the "discussion" started:

GUTFELD (7/19/24): Charly, new research indicates the earth's rotation is slowing down because melting polar ice is shifting the earth's mass around the equator. Days are now a few milliseconds longer. 

Can you explain the science to me?

ARNHOLT: I don't know who's mad about this! I'm happy about this, if this is true. I love climate change if this is true, because I'm always complaining about how the days are too short. 

I wish I had more time. I mean, I'll be honest, it's only by a few milliseconds per day—

GUTFELD: But it adds up!

ARNHOLT: OK, but I would like to take this time to say thank you to the made-up hoax called climate change if this is in fact true. And to discuss it further, I'd like to offer myself for a trip to the Mediterranean on Mark Zuckerberg's new mega-yacht—$300 million, 278 feet. I feel like that's the perfect place, perfect locale, to have a discussion about climate change.

[APPLAUSE] 

For the record, the audiences for this show aren't super-impressive either.

As noted, Arnholt is a genuine flyweight, like almost all Gutfeld! guests. That said, she understands her casting within the journalistic hoax known as the Fox News Channel.

As we've noted, Gutfeld himself routinely describes climate change as a hoax. A few weeks ago, he listed it among what he called "the major hoaxes."

Arnholt had nothing to say about the topic at hand, but she knew she could float that vibe. And so, just like that, she did.

As the pseudo-discussion proceeded, Gutfeld worked in one of his nightly jokes about Joy Behar being too fat. (The younger Arnholt isn't.) Soon, though, he shared his own scientific greatness concerning the "idiotic" claims of the world's major climate scientists.

He spoke to the flyweight Rob Long:

GUTFELD: You know, Rob, this is just another hoax that's going to implode...We already know that the climate models are completely idiotic—

LONG: Right.

GUTFELD: —and the idea that you can measure the temperature of the earth? No one's ever questioned that, but you can't do it. So all of this is bull[BLEEP]. We're just getting around to finding that out.

LONG: They're running out of things to declare the emergency. Well obviously, the oceans are all going to rise. We'll all be living underwater. We'll have to grow gills.

Long is an undisguised flyweight, but he knows what he's paid to say. Meanwhile, just to be clear:

When Gutfeld said the whole thing is "bullshit," the suits at Fox bleeped the second part of that very bad word. The bosses at Fox are very careful about what they allow on the air!

This sort of thing goes on, night after night, as the clowncar brings these tools to the set of this propaganda program. Also this:

As this clown show helps produce our present-day American Babel, major news orgs in Blue America know to avert their eyes. This garbage transpires night after night. The Times agrees not to notice.

For the record, the host of this pathetic show is sometimes right on the merits concerning the topics he mentions. Given the way our own Blue America has functioned in recent years, it's very hard to be totally wrong if you're working for Fox.

It's hard to be totally wrong on Fox! We expect to explore that embarrassing but highly salient fact at the start of the coming week.