MADMEN: On Monday, we said he isn't a madman!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2025

Two days later, this: We're going to start today's report with rare words of self-endorsement.

We revealed the framework for this week's rumination when we posted Monday morning's report. The one-word framework was this:

MADMEN

We said the commander isn't a madman. We said you could feel sure about that because there's no such clinical term.

We said the same thing about the commander's first lieutenant. Allegedly, he's the world's richest person. Employing a version of the king's English, he's also a visible nutcase.

He may be a visible nutcase, but he plainly isn't insane. We know that this visible nutcase isn't insane because no such diagnostic term exists in the DSM.

To our credit, we chose that one-word framework—MADMEN—and posted it Monday morning. Two days later, the commander has proposed that we the people send our nation's military overseas to make Gaza the 54th state, but also the world's largest golf course.

Before the commander made that proposal, the lieutenant added to his array of characterizations concerning USAID. In Monday afternoon's report, we linked you to four of his more thoughtful tweets about that federal agency. 

As of yesterday, he had added a fifth. Please pardon this first lieutenant's French:

The first lieutenant's tweets
"USAID was a viper's nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America." 

"USAID is evil." 

“USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.” 

"USAID is a criminal organization." 

"We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could [have] gone to some great parties. Did that instead."

To see that latest tweet, click here. That said, this fellow in question isn't a madman and he isn't insane or nuts, for the reason already stated.

On this morning's Morning Joe, Joe was unhelpfully AWOL Lucky for us, Anand Giridharadas was there. 

In our view, Giridharadas is one of the clearest voices currently found within our failing nation's failing attempt at a discourse. Perhaps because he has too much hair, he hasn't attained his rightful place at the top of that (imitation of) discourse.

He comes to us by way of Shaker Heights and then Sidwell Friends. For more on his background, you can simply click this, or you might decide to click here.

This morning, Giridharadas said that our major newspapers have had a hard time finding the language to describe what Musk is doing as what it is—"a coup." In our view, a similar situation exists with respect to the language being explored this week right here at this site.

We went with MADMEN on Monday morning. Two days later, this! 

We'll close today with a key point concerning the role of "aha moments" within our imperfect human discourse. First, though, we'll tell you this:

As we noted on Monday, there's no such lingo as madman or insane within the clinical discourse. As we noted, the very term "mental illness" is fairly widely eschewed, or so says the leading authority in this particular treatise:

Classification of mental disorders

The classification of mental disorders, also known as psychiatric nosology or psychiatric taxonomy, is central to the practice of psychiatry and other mental health professions.

[...]

Most international clinical documents avoid the term "mental illness," preferring the term "mental disorder." However, some use "mental illness" as the main overarching term to encompass mental disorders. Some consumer/survivor movement organizations oppose use of the term "mental illness" on the grounds that it supports the dominance of a medical model. The term "serious mental impairment" (SMI) is sometimes used to refer to more severe and long-lasting disorders while "mental health problems" may be used as a broader term, or to refer only to milder or more transient issues. Confusion often surrounds the ways and contexts in which these terms are used.

Confusion surrounds the contexts and ways! But around the world, most clinical documents don't even like to use the term "mental illness," or so says the leading authority.

For reasons which are spelled out elsewhere, clinical specialists tend to avoid that familiar term. They prefer the term "mental disorder." 

For today, though, let it be said—possibly adding to the confusion, there seem to be (literally) hundreds of ways in which a person can fall victim to, or be in the grip of, some diagnosable "mental disorder." We'll start you off with the material offered below. 

This material is drawn from the authority's lengthy treatise on "Mental disorder." We've done a bit of editing to keep the word count down:

Mental disorder

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

The causes of mental disorders are often unclear. Theories incorporate findings from a range of fields...

[...]

Disorders

There are many different categories of mental disorder, and many different facets of human behavior and personality that can become disordered.

Anxiety disorders...

Mood disorders...

Psychotic disorders...

Personality disorders...

Neurodevelopmental disorders...

Eating disorders...

Sleep disorders...

Sexuality related...

Other... 

[Seven are listed, plus this:]

There are a number of uncommon psychiatric syndromes, which are often named after the person who first described them, such as Capgras syndrome, De Clerambault syndrome, Othello syndrome, Ganser syndrome, Cotard delusion, and Ekbom syndrome, and additional disorders such as the Couvade syndrome and Geschwind syndrome.

And so on from there. "Mental disorders are common," the treatise eventually states—and if you believe in this branch of medical science, you're almost forced to agree with some such assessment as that.

Forget about the percentage of people subject to some form of mental disorder at some given point in time. How many different disorders are there? 

How many mental disorders are there? In that other treatise at the authority's site, we find ourselves told this:

Classification of mental disorders

The classification of mental disorders, also known as psychiatric nosology or psychiatric taxonomy, is central to the practice of psychiatry and other mental health professions.

The two most widely used psychiatric classification systems are chapter V of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO); and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

[...]

DSM IV:

The DSM-IV was originally published in 1994 and listed more than 250 mental disorders...

The DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision, 2000) consisted of five axes (domains) on which disorder could be assessed...The axis classification system was removed in the DSM-5 and is now mostly of historical significance. The main categories of disorder in the [current] DSM-5 are:

[DSM-5] 

Disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood or adolescence. *Disorders such as ADHD and epilepsy have also been referred to as developmental disorders and developmental disabilities.

Delirium, dementia, and amnesia and other cognitive disorders...

Mental disorders due to a general medical condition...

Substance-related disorders...

Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders...

Mood disorders...

Anxiety disorders...

Somatoform disorders...

Factitious disorders ...

Dissociative disorders...

Sexual and gender dysphoria...

Eating disorders...

Sleep disorders...

Adjustment disorders...

Personality disorders...

Other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention...

Again, we've done some editing there. But you're getting the general idea.

In short, there are currently many ways in which a person can not be a madman—can not be "mentally ill." Concerning the decision by our major news orgs to avoid this branch of medical science, we'll close today by offering this:

For years, we've been saying that the refusal to enter this realm is a marker of the immaturity of our journalistic and academic discourse. (We've also persistently said that it may be a good or a bad idea that our big news orgs have insisted on avoiding this dangerous realm.)

Having said that, also this:

Giridharadas has said that our major orgs have been avoiding the scary but accurate term, "coup." According to us, they've also avoided all suggestion that something may be clinically "wrong" with the commander and with the collection of apparently broken toys with whom he's been filling his playroom.

Those orgs have stayed away from even the most humanely couched suggestion that something might be clinically "wrong" with the commander or with his collection of toys.  For today, we'll leave you with a suggestion:

On its face, this latest proposal by the commander is transparently crazy. Voters might be able to see that fact more clearly—might have experienced Merriam-Webster's "Aha moment" with respect to this commander's suit of clothes—if the guardians of our discourse had been able to find humane ways to suggest that possibility all along.

The sitting commander isn't a madman. On the other hand, this! Make way for the 54th state!

Tomorrow: Concerning the 1994 film, The Madness of King George

MADMEN: Marcus voices arresting opinion!

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2025

Our series resumes tomorrow: Over at the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus has given voice to a matter of opinion.

Her column appeared on the Post's web site one hour before we walked in the door. On the front page of the site, it was teased in the following manner:

Ruth Marcus
The most damaging two weeks in history

Yikes! That's the way it's teased!

Greedily, we clicked the link. Marcus was giving voice to a matter of opinion. Headline included, her column starts like this:

Trump 2.0: The most damaging first two weeks in presidential history

No president in history has caused more damage to the nation more quickly. As we enter Week 3 of President Donald Trump’s second term, the chaos and disruption of his first look quaint by comparison. The country survived Trump 1. Now, it faces a real threat that the harm he inflicts during his second term will be irreparable. The United States’ standing in the world, its ability to keep the country safe, the federal government’s fundamental capacity to operate effectively—all of these will take years to repair, if that can be achieved at all.

This column will concentrate on the third piece of that trifecta: efforts to undermine the basic functioning of government...

As you can see, the tease slightly overstates the claim. That said, Marcus continues along from there, giving voice to several (arresting) matters of judgment, assessment, opinion.

Some people will agree with her views. Other people will not. Senators Collins and Tillis will give it plenty of thought and will then announce that they don't.

Others will agree with Marcus' arresting assessments. Of one thing we can all be sure:

If "irreparable harm" is being inflicted, it isn't being inflicted by madmen! We can say that with some assurance because, as we noted yesterday, there's no such clinical term.

That said, the bizarre statements continue from the commander and his lieutenant. Also, the extremely unusual actions continue on an array of governmental fronts.

Some may refer to this as a "putsch," even as a series of "putsches" (actual plural form). We think such people would be speaking in a highly colloquial manner.

Yesterday, we promised to stop playing cute with this deadly serious topic. Given the madness-adjacent behavior which seems to be all around us, that might be a difficult promise to keep.

For ourselves, we lost the entire day to the rigors of medical science. We plan to resume our series tomorrow.

We're shooting toward a series of questions about the people who are conducting the actions to which Marcus refers in her column. Is something possibly "wrong" with these people? And how exactly does the logic of such an assessment work?

In the strictest clinical sense, there are literally hundreds of ways for something to be (clinically) "wrong" with a person. The possibilities go on and on and on and on. We may discuss that tomorrow.

Could something be "wrong" with the people in question? We still think that's a seminal question about a deadly serious matter. 

Also this:

For the record, we're still recommending that you feel "pity" for the (metaphorical) "poor immigrant"—even as you try to strip them of the "power to do evil."

 That was Dylan's advice long ago—and once again, he's hot.

BREAKING: Blue America seeks the fourth vote!

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2025

Can anyone play this game? In the critically-acclaimed film of the same name, Joseph Cotten scoured post-war Vienna is search of "the third man."

In recent weeks, Blue America's tribunes have been scouring the countryside, looking for "the fourth vote." We've had a basic reaction to that search:

Can anyone here play this game?

We would have thought that everyone had agreed, long ago, on the fallacy which lies behind that search. This morning, we finally saw Jonathan Lemire say that it will almost surely take a fifth vote to defeat one of the commander's nominees.

Even he made an error along the way. Our prediction goes like this:

We've already seen a Trump nominee receive three NO votes. (There were three such votes against Nominee Hegseth, who of course got confirmed.)

Also, we may see some nominee get rejected by a group of five NO votes. We aren't predicting that that will occur, but it always could.

Our prediction, which could always be wrong:

You won't see a nominee rejected by four NO votes. Later today, we'll explain this deathless theory, hopefully with the aid of Lemire's full statement. 

(We'll buttress our theory as we recall the peculiar timing of Mitch McConnell's NO vote with respect to Nominee Hegseth.)

Until the past few weeks, we would have thought that everyone had long since agreed on the logic behind this five-vote theory. Over here in Blue America, can anyone play this game?

Needless to say, our prediction could always be wrong! For ourselves, we'll be losing most of the day to the ongoing work of medical science. We'll post this afternoon.

MONDAY: Elon Musk isn't a nut!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2025

There's no such technical term: For the record, Elon Musk isn't "a madman" or a nut. As we detailed this morning, there are no such technical terms.

The same can be said for Donald J. Trump. On the other hand, in this morning's print editions, the New York Times was reporting this:

Top Security Officials at Aid Agency Put on Leave After Denying Access to Musk Team

The two top security officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development were put on administrative leave on Saturday night after refusing to give representatives of Elon Musk access to internal systems, according to three U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.

And the agency’s chief of staff, Matt Hopson, a Trump administration political appointee who had started his job days ago, has resigned, two of the officials said.

[...]

Mr. Trump, returning to Washington from his home in Palm Beach Sunday evening, disparaged the agency, telling reporters traveling with him that it was run by “radical lunatics.”

“We’re getting them out, and then we’ll make a decision,” he said.

He also praised Mr. Musk as “very smart.”

A few hours later, Mr. Musk said that Mr. Trump believed that the agency should be shut down.

“None of this could be done without the full support of the president,” Mr. Musk said on an X Spaces event. “I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed with that we should shut it down. I want to be clear. I actually checked with him a few times. I said, “Are you sure?’ ‘Yes.’ So we’re shutting it down.”

Mr. Musk has posted a series of messages in recent days expressing fury at the aid agency and voicing conspiracy theories about it.

“USAID is a criminal organization,” Mr. Musk wrote on Sunday in a social media post that many aid workers saw as confirmation the agency would soon be absorbed into the State Department and that some viewed as a potential threat to their personal safety. “Time for it to die.”

According to these public officials, neither of whom is insane, USAID is "a criminal organization." As it turns out, it's an organization which has been run by a bunch of "radical lunatics." 

For the record, the Times was quoting one of several social media posts from the man who isn't a nutcase. Yesterday, Musk authored such posts as these:

"USAID was a viper's nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America."

"USAID is evil."

“USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.”

"USAID is a criminal organization."

As any very smart person would do, he was trying extra hard to articulate his key point.

Yesterday, Kevin Drum explained Musk's concern about this evil viper's nest. We link, you decide:

Here’s how USAID ended up in Trump’s crosshairs

[...]

What account[s] for Trump's specific fury toward USAID? Most likely, he was influenced by Elon Musk, who has been raging against the agency on Twitter, calling it a "a viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America"¹ and later declaring, "USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die." Yesterday, Musk acolytes stormed into USAID headquarters demanding access to security systems and personnel files. They were turned back, but eventually got in after a couple of top security officials were put on leave.

Whew. But why is Musk so exercised about USAID? This is where things get murky, but it turns out Musk is a big fan of a guy named Mike Benz, a far-right provocateur, white supremacist, and all-around conspiracy crank...

Kevin's account continues from there. Meanwhile, there was Chrystia Freeland, on today's Morning Joe, using such language as this with respect to the tariffs which are being slapped on Canada. Over at Mediaite, David Gilmour provided a transcript and tape:

This really is utter madness. And, you know, from our [Canadian] perspective, the key thing here is you guys are engaged in this colossal act of self-harm. These tariffs are going to make life more expensive for Americans. You have put a tariff on the gas we sell you, so gas is going to be more expensive. You have put a tariff on the food that you are buying. That’s a tax on groceries, they’re going to be more expensive. We have now the United Steelworkers, the American Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, all saying this is going to hurt America. Stock futures are down.

You are hurting yourselves. You are taxing regular Americans. And we are going to fight back. And Canada is your biggest market. Canada is a bigger market for US exporters than China, Japan, the UK and France combined.

For Americans. like, your businesspeople, right? The customer is always right, and your customer is really angry at you. The whole country is behind the retaliation the prime minister has announced so now we are going to tax American exporters who are trying to sell us stuff. That means Americans are going to lose jobs.

So this is really—it is self-mutilation. America is hurting itself. We think that it is utterly crazy. And we’re also really, really angry at you.

Presumably, Freeland was speaking metaphorically when she used such terms as "utter madness" and "utterly crazy" with respect to the conduct of Trump.

Who the heck is Chrystia Freeland? We're so old that we can remember when she was a journalist and a regular guest on Hardball.

Freeland was always a bit too bight for that particular program. Today, she's a member of Canadian parliament who hopes to succeed Justin Trudeau as PM. Before she called Trump crazy and mad, she explained how the tariffs will affect our two countries. 

We aren't saying that she's right. We aren't saying she's wrong. 

We promise to stop being snarky about this serious topic. But for today, we'll only say that we were struck by the (obviously colloquial) language Freeland chose to use.

MADMEN: "Madman" isn't a technical term!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2025

The silence has been a surrender: A far as we know, "madman" isn't, and has never been, a technical clinical term.

As far as we know, it isn't a term that's used within the fields of psychiatry or psychology. As far as we know, it isn't a term that's used within any branch of medical science.

"Madman" is a term of art—a part of colloquial discourse. As far as we know, no one in the medical field ever says that Person X is a madman, or even a madwoman, not even if the person in question lives in Chaillot, a part of Paris, France. 

(In French, the corresponding term seems to be "la folle." As far as we know, medical practitioners never use that term.)

"Madman" is a part of colloquial discourse. In its place, medical practitioners might be inclined to say that some such person is "mentally ill"—or then again, possibly not! Consider what we learn from the planet's leading authority on matters of mental health.

That authority does offer a lengthy discussion which carries this heading: "Mental health." That said, the same authority offers no corresponding submission headlined as "Mental illness."

Instead, the authority matches its lengthy entry on "Mental health" with an equally lengthy entry on "Mental disorder." Regarding the term in question, the reader is quickly told this:

Mental disorder

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

The causes of mental disorders are often unclear...

According to that passage, a "mental disorder" is also referred to, presumably by medical specialists, as a "mental illness." Somewhat similarly, the reader is also quickly told this, right there at the start of paragraphs 5-7 of the submission in question:

The definition and classification of mental disorders are key issues for researchers as well as service providers and those who may be diagnosed. For a mental state to be classified as a disorder, it generally needs to cause dysfunction. Most international clinical documents use the term mental "disorder," while "illness" is also common. 

According to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), published in 1994, a mental disorder is a psychological syndrome or pattern that is associated with distress (e.g., via a painful symptom), disability (impairment in one or more important areas of functioning), increased risk of death, or causes a significant loss of autonomy; however, it excludes normal responses such as the grief from loss of a loved one and also excludes deviant behavior for political, religious, or societal reasons not arising from a dysfunction in the individual.

DSM-IV predicates the definition with caveats, stating that, as in the case with many medical terms, mental disorder "lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations," noting that different levels of abstraction can be used for medical definitions, including pathology, symptomology, deviance from a normal range, or etiology, and that the same is true for mental disorders, so that sometimes one type of definition is appropriate and sometimes another, depending on the situation.

Even this early in the discussion, it's getting complex in here! 

That said, it sounds like there's nothing "wrong" with the familiar term, "mental illness." On the other hand, we're told that the alternate term, "mental disorder," is used more frequently around the world.

It still sounds like either term is pretty much OK. However, if you click ahead to another long entry within that same authoritative source, the reader is now told something different. 

Below, you see language from that third lengthy entry, an entry whose heading is shown below:

Classification of mental disorders

The classification of mental disorders, also known as psychiatric nosology or psychiatric taxonomy, is central to the practice of psychiatry and other mental health professions.

The two most widely used psychiatric classification systems are chapter V of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO); and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

[...]

Most international clinical documents avoid the term "mental illness," preferring the term "mental disorder." However, some use "mental illness" as the main overarching term to encompass mental disorders. Some consumer/survivor movement organizations oppose use of the term "mental illness" on the grounds that it supports the dominance of a medical model. The term "serious mental impairment" (SMI) is sometimes used to refer to more severe and long-lasting disorders while "mental health problems" may be used as a broader term, or to refer only to milder or more transient issues. Confusion often surrounds the ways and contexts in which these terms are used.

At long last, our guide has acknowledged a bit of "confusion" surrounding the complexities of the conceptual wilderness into which we've now agreed to wander. Beyond that, we're also told that most international clinical documents avoid the term "mental illness!" 

Most clinical documents avoid that term! In some venues, the term "serious mental impairment (SMI)" may be preferred, we're now told. 

Alas! As with everything else in our struggling world, "Confusion often surrounds the ways and contexts in which these terms are used." 

The confusion and complexity seem to be general, or so it now seems we've been told. And that's certainly true within the world of American journalism with respect to the concepts at hand.

In the world of American journalism, practitioners routinely speak of "mental illness" when discussing certain types of behaviors, including instances of violent "street crimes" committed by people who are said to be homeless, or who are perhaps unhoused. 

On the other hand, practitioners never speak of "mental illness" when discussing the peculiar behaviors and crazy statements of major public officials. For better or for worse, it simply isn't done.

For better or worse, our journalists don't speak of "mental illness" with respect to such people—and they don't speak of "mental disorders" either. With respect to such prominent people, the use of such language has long been forbidden by the unwritten rules of the guild.

Does "mental illness" (or some such condition) even exist in the world? We may briefly sample that question before the week is done.

But according to journalistic tradition, no such condition can be said to exist in the world of major public officials. That's true no matter how wildly disordered their behaviors, and their endless public statements, may endlessly seem to be.

No major public official can be said to be gripped by a mental illness, or even by a mental disorder! Similarly, no such person can be said to be a madman, or even a nutcase or nut.

Such prohibitions may be creating a major problem with respect to the public discussion of some current public officials. For example, is it possible that Elon Musk is a clinical nutcase? Is it possible that the current commander, Donald J. Trump, fits within that same rubric?

For the record, the questions we're asking are totally academic—are totally theoretical. No such behavior will ever emerge within the mainstream press, no matter how disordered the behavior of these people may seem to become.

Our questions are purely theoretical. At most, someone will be "telling this with a sigh / Somewhere ages and ages hence."

With that basic point acknowledged, is it actually possible? Is it possible that a major, well-known public official could be gripped by a "mental disorder?" 

A system-wide silence has been maintained with respect to such questions. That system-wide silence is being maintained even now, as it starts to look like the nighttime assault has begun. 

The system-wide silence is being maintained. We'll close today with one more theoretical question:

Is it possible that the refusal to ask such obvious questions will qualify, in the end, as yet another "mental disorder" within this vale of tears?

Tomorrow: We expect to lose most of the day tomorrow. For a tiny overview of our (purely theoretical) concerns about the commander and the satrap, see this afternoon's report.

("A satrap served as a viceroy to the king, though with considerable autonomy." If you doubt that representation, you can just click here.)

SUNDAY: Brooks expands journalistic language!

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2025

It's the stupidity, Stupid: In this morning's New York Times, David Brooks is taking an important step in a new direction.

He's extending, or seeking to extend, the possibilities found within our journalistic language. Headline included, his column starts like this:

The Six Principles of Stupidity

This was the week in which the Chinese made incredible gains in artificial intelligence and the Americans made incredible gains in human stupidity. I’m sorry, but I look at the Trump administration’s behavior over the last week and the only word that accurately describes it is: stupid.

Brooks starts by apologizing for his surprising language. We think that step was appropriate. We'd call it a good idea. 

Brooks says he's sorry for what's coming next. But then, he goes ahead and pops the cork on his unusual choice of words:

He employs a rarely used term. He says there's only one word for recent behavior by the current commander. Here's the word for which he apologizes:

The key word he uses is "stupid."

We ourselves have often noted the need to activate certain types of forbidden journalistic language:

We've often said that we need to introduce the language of "mental illness" into the journalistic discourse. Starting tomorrow, "mental illness" will be our theme all through the course of the week.

Of late, we've also noted the fact that our journalistic traditions make it hard for journalists to describe certain behaviors for what they are—for being blindingly stupid. In his column, Brooks is pushing forward toward that new frontier.

By tradition and practice, journalists don't talk a lot about people, actions or ideas being "stupid." That helps explain today's apology by Brooks. It also helps us understand the value of the direction in which he points in his column—a column which, at fuller length, actually starts like this:

The Six Principles of Stupidity

This was the week in which the Chinese made incredible gains in artificial intelligence and the Americans made incredible gains in human stupidity. I’m sorry, but I look at the Trump administration’s behavior over the last week and the only word that accurately describes it is: stupid.

I am not saying the members of the Trump administration are not intelligent. We all know high-I.Q. people who behave in a way that’s as dumb as rocks. I don’t believe that there are stupid people, just stupid behaviors. As the Italian historian Carlo Cipolla once put it, “The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.”

And I am certainly not saying Donald Trump’s supporters are less intelligent than others. I’ve learned over the years that many upscale Democrats detest intellectual diversity. When they have power over a system—whether it’s academia, the mainstream media, the nonprofits or the Civil Service—they tend to impose a stifling orthodoxy that makes everybody within it duller, more conformist and insular. If Republicans want to upend that, I say: Go for it.

I define stupidity as behaving in a way that ignores the question: What would happen next? If somebody comes up to you and says, “I think I’m going to take a hike in a lightning storm with a copper antenna on my head,” stupidity replies, “That sounds like a really great idea!” Stupidity is the tendency to take actions that hurt you and the people around you.

The administration produced volleys of stupidity this week...

After apologizing, Brooks includes a few disclaimers:

He isn't saying that members of the new administration are unintelligent. (Although some certainly may be.) Also, he isn't saying that the commander's supporters are dumber than everyone else.

He also seems to say that many of us in Blue America have trafficked in The Stupid too. That's a very important point. We'll list some specifics below.

That said, let's ponder this:

Is it true? Did the Trump administration "produce volleys of stupidity this week?"

That, of course, is a matter of judgment. As he continues, Brooks presents examples of alleged stupidity with which some people won't agree.

From there, he goes on to present what his headline promises—six "principles of stupidity." You may or may not agree with his list—but in our view, the gentleman is suddenly pruning trees in an appropriate vineyard.

The Stupid is all around us at this point in time. Our journalists never say so, but The Stupid is one of the central organizational principles of modern American "journalism."

For starters, we're thinking of the organizational principle called "segregation by viewpoint." Here's the obvious question we've raised this very week:

What's the point? What's the point of assembling four-member panels on "cable news" TV shows if every member of every panel is going to agree with every word every other member has said?

(That's exactly right should be the official corporate motto at Fox.)

Plainly, that practice is designed to create an illusion—the illusion that some sort of "discussion" is taking place. 

What's actually taking place is an act of preapproved corporate messaging. Judged on a journalistic / informational basis, the creation of those pseudo-discussions is an amazingly stupid act—an imitation of life.

That said, The Stupid has been running wild—and not just on the commander's team, and not just in Red America. As Brooks suggests, The Stupid has been on a roll in Blue America too.

Over the past four years, our own Blue versions of The Stupid helped send the commander back to his perch in the White House. We refer to the ways we Blues earned our way out, to such manifestations as these:

Our failure to see that something seemed to be wrong with President Biden. (Or perhaps, our refusal to give voice to what we were able to see.)

Our failure to see the apparent lunacy of what seemed to be happening at the southern border. (Or our refusal to discuss that unexplained state of affairs.)

Our failure to discuss the problems which seemed to be involved in various aspects of "the cost of living." Our astounding, single-minded focus on the desire to frog-march Donald J. Trump to prison, which we used as a way, on our own cable shows, to avoid discussing the actual apparent problems which everyone else could see.

Also, the endless clown shows which were tangled up in what had come to be known as "Woke." Those clown shows were endlessly tangled up in Blue, even in the bizarre (and weirdly ugly) insertions of black characters into the recent Dylan film—weirdly ugly insertions we've seen no one in Blue America notice or discuss.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but we humans are inclined to veer toward behaviors which are perhaps a bit "stupid."

Our journalists need to be able to talk about those endless manifestations. It's generally wiser to veer toward the gentler word "dumb," but The Stupid has been running wild, and not just Over There.

Also this, concerning the WHO: Two fact checks have appeared concerning what the commander said about the WHO. (See yesterday's report.)

We sighed when we read each fact check! We expect to discuss those offerings on Tuesday, a day on which we're scheduled to lose a large chunk of time.

Tomorrow, we start a week in which we'll be discussing "mental illness." Full disclosure—we'll be catching your eye with a (colloquial) term which is even more racy than that!

The commander keeps saying the darnedest things, about an array of topics! What should journalists think about that? What should their fact-checks look like? What should their conventions of language permit such people to say? 

Is "something wrong" with the person in question? What kinds of science are journos avoiding when they keep refusing to ask?

SATURDAY: Commander hears and tackles the WHO!

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2025

Is a modern American Samson tearing the pillars down? In the realm of children's books, Horton famously heard a Who. 

Last week, a certain commander—he may also be a nutcase!—wrestled the WHO to the ground.

The WHO in question here is the World Health Organization. Our story starts with a news report from the New York Times on the day the commander took office:

Trump Withdraws U.S. From World Health Organization

President Trump moved quickly on Monday [January 20] to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a move that public health experts say will undermine the nation’s standing as a global health leader and make it harder to fight the next pandemic.

In an executive order issued about eight hours after he took the oath of office, Mr. Trump cited a string of reasons for the withdrawal, including the W.H.O.’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” and the “failure to adopt urgently needed reforms.” He said the agency demands “unfairly onerous payments” from the United States, and complained that China pays less.

According to the commander—he may also be a Samson—the WHO had been demanding "onerous payments" from Us. The WHO had been requiring that They pay much, much less.

For that reason, the commander had announced his plan to take a hike from the WHO. The Times report didn't attempt to state any numbers regarding those onerous payments.

This Times report never appeared in print editions. Apparently, it wasn't deemed important enough. Online, the Times report does include this correction:

A correction was made on Jan. 21, 2025: An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the WHO’s $6.8 billion budget. It is the organization’s biennial budget, not annual.

One years? Two years? Was it "close enough for journalistic work?" In this vale of tears, had it seemed to make a big difference?

At any rate, the commander had quickly announced his plan to abandon the WHO. One day later, CNN added some numbers to the mix:

What is the World Health Organization and why does Trump want to leave it?

[...]

There is also a financial aspect to Trump’s animosity. The president has previously said that the US contributes around $500 million a year to WHO, compared to China’s $40 million, despite its far larger population.

As he signed Monday’s executive order, Trump was asked whether, as president during Covid-19, he appreciated the importance of agencies like WHO.

“I do, but not when you’re being ripped off like we are,” he replied.

The commander said we were being ripped off—and CNN cited his numbers. But were his numbers accurate?

Within a very lengthy report, CNN made no attempt to say. On January 27, it fell to a reporter at the Fox News site to take the story further. 

Regarding those numbers, the commander had gone on and on, then on and on, at a Las Vegas rally. As you scan the Fox News report, please note the reference to the fact check from NPR:

Trump open to considering re-entry into World Health Organization: 'They'd have to clean it up'

President Donald Trump said he was open to potentially rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO), just days after he signed a Day One executive order that withdrew the U.S. from the international group.

During a rally at Circa Resort & Casino in Downtown Las Vegas, the president told those in attendance that it was unfair a country like China, with a population much greater than the U.S., was only paying a fraction of what the U.S. was paying annually to the WHO.

"We paid $500 million a year and China paid $39 million a year despite a much larger population. Think of that. China's paying $39 million to have 1.4 billion people, we pay $500 million we have—no one knows what the hell we have, does anyone know? We have so many people pouring in we have no idea," Trump told rally goers on Saturday.

"They offered me at $39 million, they said 'We'll let you back in for $39 million,' they're going to reduce it from [$500 million] to [$39 million], and I turned them down, because it became so popular I didn't know if it would be well received even at [$39 million], but maybe we would consider doing it again, I don’t know, they have to clean it up a bit." 

An analysis of national contributions to the WHO from NPR found that the U.S. pays for roughly 10% of the WHO's budget, while China pays about 3%.

[Bracketed insertions by Fox News]

The commander had said he might beat back his great anger and walk back his stand. First, though, the WHO would have to offer a better deal regarding those crazy payments.

Meanwhile, there you saw the specific numbers the commanders had been citing. It was much as CNN had said:

Thanks to the rip-off by the WHO, We had to pay $500 million. Meanwhile, They gained admission to the WHO for only $39 million.

To its (minor) credit, the Fox News report had cited an NPR fact-check. As of a few days ago, we were still unable to find any other fact-checks of those numbers. With this, as with so much of his madness, Blue news orgs had decided to let the commander's angry claims go.

Fox News linked to the NPR fact-check. At this site, we'd already seen it—and sure enough! When we reviewed it, Sad!

We'd already seen the NPR effort. Eventually, it offers a surprise:

Assessing Trump's claim that U.S. pays 'unfair' share of dues to WHO

Newly inaugurated, President Trump took a set of thick, black sharpies on Monday [January 20] and signed a flurry of executive orders—including one that has people in the global health community deeply concerned. That order would withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a U.N. global health agency the U.S. helped found in 1948.

As he penned his name to the order, Trump began by saying, "Ooh, that's a big one." He then offered a set of spontaneous remarks about the rationale behind the withdrawal, which focused on what he and his team perceive as an unfair allocation of dues.

He noted that the U.S. pays WHO $500 million annually compared to China's $39 million contribution. But Trump raised the point: Should the U.S. pay so much more than China when its population (1.4 billion people) is way larger than the American population (341 million estimate by the Census Bureau).

"Seemed a little unfair to me," he said.

[...]

The World Health Organization receives funding from two pots. The first is a set of assessed contributions from its nearly 200 member states. Each assessment is determined by the United Nations and based on a country's "capacity to pay," which involves both the size of its population and wealth. Member states vote to approve the assessments at the World Health Assembly every other year. For the years 2024-2025, WHO says that number has been set at $264 million for the U.S. and $181 million for China.

Say what? According to the WHO, the actual numbers differ from those the excited commander had blared. 

"For the years 2024-2025" (whatever that means), the actual numbers were now said to be this:

Us: $264 million 
Them:  $181 million 

According to the NPR fact-check, that's what the WHO said. Meanwhile, are those numbers accurate? As with CNN, so too here:

The NPR fact-check never attempted to say. 

For the record, the fact-check had been composed by a "freelance contributor" to a minor NPR site. And from there, the NPR fact-check drifted off into what we would regard as a conceptual La-La Land.  

You can review where it went for yourself. We'd call the conceptual cluelessness massive from that point on.

(Frankly, we weep when we see it! When we see that this seems to be the best our own Blue America can do at this (very late) date.)

In conclusion, we offer a summary:

The commander had leaped into action, assailing the rip-off by the fiendish WHO. Below, you see the numbers he constantly cited—and you see some (possible) alternate facts:

Numbers according to the commander:
Us: $500 million 
Them:  $39 million 

Numbers according to the WHO:
Us: $264 million 
Them:  $181 million

Which set of numbers is accurate? We know of no sign that anyone cares. But if the WHO's numbers are accurate, the commander had done it again!

Is the commander also a madman? Beyond that, is he possibly a Samson, tearing the pillars of the American project down?

Is the commander also a Samson? Is he a stone-cold nut?

Is the commander a nutcase? Over here in Blue America, does anyone actually care enough to actually try to find out?

Discourse on method: We last searched for fact-checks earlier this week. More than a week after the commander's initial action, only that NPR effort appeared. 

As that fact-check continues, we regard its reasoning as remarkably hapless. This seems to be the best we massively self-impressed Blues are able to do at this point.

Is a Samson pulling the pillars down? What keeps us from floating a "yes?"