MONDAY: David French, in search of hope!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2025

Reconciliation: A gloomy guest essay appeared in Sunday's New York Times.

"The West Is Lost," the headline said. All in all, we can't quite say this is wrong:

The West Is Lost

From the Enlightenment onward, progress functioned as the secular creed of the West. For centuries our societies were defined by the conviction that the future must outshine the present, just as the present surpassed the past. Such optimistic faith was not merely cultural or institutional but all-encompassing: Everything was going to get better. In this way of thinking, there was no room for loss.

Today, that civilizational belief is under profound threat. Loss has become a pervasive condition of life in Europe and America. It shapes the collective horizon more insistently than at any time since 1945, spilling into the mainstream of political, intellectual and everyday life. The question is no longer whether loss can be avoided but whether societies whose imagination is bound to “better” and “more” can learn to endure “less” and “worse."

We can't say that's wrong. The author, Andreas Reckwitz, lists the various regressions which are underway (economic, environmental, geopolitical), leading on to this:

[C]oncealment has become impossible. Losses multiply and attract attention, while faith in progress falters. Once societies no longer believe that the future will inevitably be better, losses appear more severe. There is no guarantee that they are merely transitory episodes; soon, they begin to seem irreversible. This forms the basis of today’s crisis. As the experience of loss contradicts the modern promise of never-ending progress, a general sense of grievance prevails.

Against this backdrop, the rise of right-wing populism makes sense. Populist politics, whether in Europe or America, appeals to fears of decline and promises restoration: “Take back control” or “Make America great again.” Populism channels anger over what has disappeared but provides only illusions of recovery. The crucial question then becomes: How to deal with loss? Is there an alternative to both populist politics and the naïve belief in progress?

Is there a way out of this gloom? Reckwitz, drops in on psychotherapy to offer some possible balms. In an unintended near response, David French describes a somewhat similar state of despair in his own new column. French is describing a sense of despair on the American political front:

There’s a Path Out of This Divide

[...]

When I speak on college campuses or in churches, or when I simply talk politics with friends, I constantly hear different variations of the same questions: Can we get through this? What’s the plan? And perhaps the most poignant question of all—is there hope?

There are, in fact, plans—lots of plans—to restore our nation’s unity and purpose. Whether it’s restoring our country’s capacity to build big things, or amending the Constitution to rein in imperial presidents, or simply doing something about those infernal phones that cause so many children (and adults) to isolate themselves in anxiety and depression, many of our nation’s best and brightest minds are brimming with good ideas.

When I share my own ideas, I get the same response time and again: We can’t do it. People hate each other too much. We are too divided. We can’t compromise.

"We can’t do it," people tell French. "[We] hate each other too much." 

Within the American context, French counsels a tribal forgiveness. It's a bit like truth and reconciliation as practiced elsewhere in the world (and sometimes here at home) by the planet's moral giants.

He cites two recent acts:

America has witnessed two remarkable acts of forgiveness in the last month. Erika Kirk forgave the man who killed her husband. Latter-day Saints loved the family of the man who massacred their brothers and sisters. A nation that produces such acts of such love is a nation that still has life. It’s a nation that still has hope.

On Tuesday, Kelsey Piper, a staff writer at The Argument, responded to the Latter-day Saints church’s act of love with a beautiful and true statement. “If America is going to make it,” Piper wrote, “it will be because people choose forgiving things they should never have had to forgive over hurting people they have every right to be angry with.”

Piper recommends that we the people practice a type of forgiveness. We should forgive other people who, by implication, seem to have done our own group wrong.

In the podcast we directed you to this morning, Rosie O'Donnell extends the hand of friendship toward regular people on the other side of the American political divide. Before the week is done, we're going to show you exactly what she said. 

In fact, she said a great many things in that deep and remarkable podcast. That was only one of the many things she said.

In response to Brother French, we're going to float an additional thought. We can not only forgive the people on the other side. We Blues can also start to acknowledge the long, long list of various things we ourselves may perhaps have got wrong!

Does no one err except the Others? We can set out to acknowledge the (fuller) truth, seeking reconciliation.

SENDS IN THE CLOWNS: In search of the historical Suzanne Scott!

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2025

CEO sends in the clowns: Among the indigenous people of her Parsippany demographic, her ancestral name is well known:

By contemporary norms, it's an unusual name. Here it is:

Sends in The Clowns.

Within the American corporate realm, she's addressed by her little-known business moniker. Last Friday, we heard someone say that name on the Fox News Channel, we think for the very first time.

Indeed, the person to whom we refer said her name right out loud!

On that day's edition of The Five, the indefatigable Jessica Tarlov was trying to reason with the irate and inane, yet loud and insistent Greg Gutfeld. Rolling the rock up the hill once again, wearily, Tarlov explained:

The First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of speech" doesn't mean that a person can't be fired by a private employer.

So the punching-bag wearily said. It was during this attempt at conducting a conversation that we heard her say her name.

For the record, Sends in The Clowns sends in Greg Gutfeld two separate times each weekday. At 5 p.m., she sends him in to discuss (imagined) celebrity colonoscopies on The Five

Five hours later, at 10 p.m., she sends him in to serve as the host of his own eponymous prime-time program. On that show, he specializes in comparisons of liberal women to horses, cows, pigs, "livestock," elephants, whales.

In such ways, a failing nation is edified, all thanks to Sends in The Clowns.

On last Friday's The Five, to our surprise, Tarlov said her name! We join this program's imitation of human life in progress:

GUTFELD (10/3/25): You can get fired over saying stupid stuff! God knows, I know!

TARLOV: Donald Trump—

GUTFELD: I know—I've been fired three times! So— Sorry, I, um—

TARLOV: The government cannot go after you. That's what the First Amendment is about. It's not about private enterprise, or Suzanne decides she doesn't like what you're saying. It's about if Donald Trump—

At that point, Kayleigh McEnany broke in, interrupted—cut Tarlov off. Due to her overtalking, we aren't quite sure, but as best we can tell, she said this, perhaps whimsically:

MCENANY (continuing directly): OK, Suzanne wants Greg to talk now. Go ahead.

Gutfeld extended the charade from there. But we were surprised by what we'd heard:

What Tarlov said was unmistakable. She'd said the name "Suzanne."

To appearances, this was a reference to Sends in The Clown—to the Fox News Channel's rarely-discussed Suzanne Scott. 

Sends in The Clowns—AKA, Scott—is the CEO of the Fox News Channel. As such, she's the person who pries the lid of the can and lets the ugly inanity out.

She heads the most watched of our struggling nation's best-known "cable news" channels. Indeed, the channel she heads is the most watched of those three channels by far.

Every day, when she sends in the clowns, she engineers an undisguised attack on the very possibility of conducting an American nation. But her name is rarely heard.  In the major organs our own declining Blue America, her conduct is rarely discussed.

Who in the world is this Suzanne Scott, who's known to the ancients as Sends in The Clowns? We'll start by letting the leading authority on her life and times offer this very brief glimpse:

Suzanne Scott

Suzanne Scott is the current CEO of Fox News, the second CEO in the network's history. She was ranked 61st in Forbes's 2021 list of the World's 100 Most Powerful Women.

Scott was raised in Parsippany, New Jersey... Her father ran a trucking company out of the family home, and her mother worked as a real estate agent. She is a 1988 graduate of American University.

Career

Scott worked as an executive assistant to Chet Collier at CNBC before moving with him to Fox News at its inception in 1996. She began her work there as a programming assistant.

According to a 2018 Fox News Channel press release, "Throughout her tenure at Fox News, Scott has risen through the ranks in a number of programming, production and creative positions including: executive vice president of programming (2016); senior vice president of programming and development (2009); vice president of programming (2007); network executive producer (2005); as well as associate producer, producer and senior producer of On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (2002–2005)...

Normally, this type of rise in the ranks would be applauded. These aren't normal times. 

(Eventually, Van Susteren became the channel's helpmate to Donald J. Trump as he spent four or five years spreading the claim that President Obama had been born in Kenya. Scott had engineered the program, then someone had sent in a clown.)

Today, we want to provide a quick overview of Scott's tenure atop Fox News. When she was named CEO in 2018, the channel was mired in such minor distractions as the problems cited below.

To avoid paywalls, we'll offer this report from The Guardian. We can't vouch for perfect fairness and balance:

Meet Suzanne Scott: the new Fox News CEO who enforced 'miniskirt rule'

Fox News announced on Thursday that their new CEO will be Suzanne Scott, currently the president of programming. The company has effectively been without an official CEO since Roger Ailes was ousted in 2016 amid sexual harassment allegations, although Rupert Murdoch had stepped in to run the channel during the interim.

In their press release about the news, Lachlan Murdoch—recently announced as CEO and chairman of Fox, Fox News’s parent company—made much of Scott being the organization’s first female CEO. However, many are concerned that Scott is a member of Fox’s old guard and her appointment is not a break from the toxic workplace culture that led to so many harassment and discrimination claims being made.

Scott herself is mired in the many harassment claims. Staff were apparently aghast when she was promoted last year, as she had been the executive tasked with enforcing Ailes’s miniskirt dress code for women. One anonymous former staff member told the Daily Beast how Scott would enforce a “skimpy” dress code in coordination with the wardrobe and makeup departments.

[...]

Through a Fox News spokesperson, Scott has previously denied enforcing a dress code or corralling support for Ailes.

We can't tell you exactly what happened. According to The Guardian (and others), that's how it was back then. For the record, we find no sign that the 2019 feature film, Bombshell—a portrait of this harassment culture—included a character representing Scott.

Before too long, a different problem had emerged at the channel. The 2020 election had come along, and some of the clowns had gone wild.

This time, we'll go with the account in the New York Times. We can't vouch for perfect accuracy, but you may get the overall gist:

Lachlan Murdoch Defends Fox News’s Chief Executive Amid Defamation Suit

Lachlan Murdoch, whose family controls the Fox media empire, issued a full-throated show of support on Thursday for Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media, as the cable channel faces a $1.6 billion defamation suit that has generated a cascade of unflattering revelations about its inner workings.

The documents revealed in the Dominion case showed Ms. Scott, among other executives and some of the network’s hosts, worrying that conservatives would abandon Fox News if its coverage became too critical of former President Donald J. Trump and his allies’ baseless claims of rampant voter fraud.

At one point, Ms. Scott privately criticized one of the network’s White House correspondents for describing many of Mr. Trump’s claims as “simply not true” during a live segment. “I can’t keep defending these reporters who don’t understand our viewers and how to handle stories,” Ms. Scott wrote in an internal email.

Ms. Scott’s future at Fox News has been the focus of some recent speculation. The defamation suit, filed by Dominion Voting Systems, argues that Fox News leadership allowed stars like Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs to air rank falsehoods about rigged voting machines that ruined Dominion’s business. Rupert Murdoch said in a deposition that any of his executives who knowingly allowed lies to be broadcast “should be reprimanded, maybe got rid of.”

Scott had been sending in such stars as Judge Jeanine. We'll let the leading authority on the suit refresh you as to the outcome:

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network

Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network (colloquially Dominion v. Fox) was a U.S. defamation lawsuit filed in March 2021 by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News Channel and its corporate parent Fox Corporation. Dominion's complaint sought US$1.6 billion in damages, alleging several Fox programs had broadcast false statements that Dominion's voting machines had been rigged to steal the 2020 United States presidential election from then-president Donald Trump. Fox News argued that it was reporting "pure opinion" regarding what others were saying which, if true, would be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Dominion focused on allegations made between November 2020 and January 2021 by hosts Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and Jeanine Pirro. Guests who often appeared with these hosts included Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, both of whom have also been sued individually by Dominion in federal court. During pre-trial discovery, Fox News' internal communications were released, indicating that prominent hosts and top executives were aware the network was reporting false statements but continued doing so to retain viewers for financial reasons.

In a summary judgment on March 31, 2023, Delaware Superior Court judge Eric M. Davis ruled that none of the disputed statements Fox News made about Dominion were true and ordered a trial to determine if the network had acted with actual malice. Several prominent Fox News personalities and senior executives were expected to testify at trial. On April 18, as opening statements were about to begin, the judge announced that the parties had reached a settlement. Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million and acknowledged the court's earlier ruling that Fox had broadcast false statements about Dominion. The settlement did not require Fox News to apologize. It is the largest known media settlement for defamation in U.S. history. Later that month, Tucker Carlson was fired from hosting Tucker Carlson Tonight, one of cable's highest-rated news shows, in response to the lawsuit's allegations of a toxic work environment on the show's set.

Many performers had been sent in to broadcast their pure opinion. After leaving the Fox News Channel, Tucker Carlson revealed that he had been attacked by unseen demons while he slept in his bed with his wife and their four unconcerned dogs.

With respect to the Dominion disaster, we can't say exactly what role the CEO played in this ugly, destructive assault on the possibility of maintaining the American system. We can repeat the text of that one email:

“I can’t keep defending these reporters who don’t understand our viewers and how to handle stories."

Does Scott understand her channel's viewers? if so, she seems to believe that the way to please them is to keep sending in the clowns.

In fact, we're being much too kind in our description of this particular "cable news" channel. The performers in question can perhaps be derided as clowns, but their effect on the American system is much more destructive than that jibe might suggest.

Meanwhile, other CEOs at other large orgs keep sending in our own Blue American clowns—the people who refuse to report or discuss the work that is done on this "cable news" channel. Who are the people who can be blamed for the silence those Blue American troupes maintain?

Has more than the one CEO been sending in the clowns? We'll consider that question as the week proceeds. For today, we're going to leave you with an extremely strong recommendation.

By accident, we stumbled upon a remarkable podcast early yesterday morning. We refer to Rosie O'Donnell's recent appearance on Nicolle Wallace's podcast, The Best People.

We were stunned by the clear, clean voce O'Donnell brought to the various elements of the day's discussion. We don't agree with every single thing that Rosie said, but we don't think we've never seen an equally striking set of presentations by an American public figure.

We strongly recommend that you watch that remarkable presentation. We'll offer you two link below. Meanwhile, sad:

With the acquiescence of CEO Scott, the clowns who are working to destroy the nation make O'Donnell one of their endless foils.

Over at the Fox News Channel, Suzanne Scott sends in the clowns. At the major orgs of our own Blue America, an unnamed set of the finer people sends in their own assortments of clowns—clowns who have agreed that the behavior of the Fox News Channel must never be reported.

O'Donnell mentions the latter problem in the course of her discussion. 

We're proud to say that we had three (3) brief encounters with Rosie along the way during her varied career, starting in 1984, when she had just turned 22.

We're enormously proud of those three brief encounters today. We've never seen a public figure who impressed us nearly this much.

Tomorrow: Pleasing Suzanne's viewers last Friday

Links to the Wallace/O'Donnell podcast: To listen to the podcast (with transcript), you can just click here.

To watch the podcast through the wonders of YouTube, you can just click this.

An array of topics and aspects of life are discussed. We don't agree with every assessment, but we were blown away by a certain clear, clean voice.


SATURDAY: Shouldn't the public be told about this?

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2025

Also, please send the specialists in: The week's exhaustion having been conquered, we'll start today with a question, then turn to a hopeful thought.

Our question emerges from yesterday morning's report. Our question goes like this:

Shouldn't the American public be told about the president's post?

To what post do we refer? As you know, we refer to this

Trump Deems Democrats ‘The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan’

President Donald Trump deemed Democrats the party of “Satan” on Thursday amid the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.

[...]

On Thursday night, the president went on a mini-posting spree on his Truth Social platform, during which he falsely claimed that he had presided over “record Black employment.”

Perhaps the most notable post, however, was a collage of prominent Democrats, including Schumer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and former President Joe Biden.

“The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan,” text on the image read. “The Democratic Party is Dead! They have no leadership! no message! no hope! their only message for America is to hate Trump!”

The Democrats are the party of Satan! Shouldn't the American public be told that the sitting president keeps posting statements like that?

At this locale, our answer would be a million times yes! But the public isn't being told about the strange things this president does. In large part, that's what an exhausted Lawrence O'Donnell was talking about when he offered this assessment at the start of Thursday night's monologue:

O'DONNELL (10/2/25): Well, the New York Times is lost. 

The New York Times is still the greatest newspaper in America by far, and one of the greatest newspapers in the world. But tonight, the New York Times is lost.

The New York Times has no idea how to cover the madness of Donald Trump. And so the New York Times ignores it, just as the madness of King George the Third had to be ignored by the London Times in 1789.

As he went on the air that night, O'Donnell didn't yet know about that latest astonishing post about "the party of Satan."

He didn't know about that astonishing post.  But he could already say this:

"The New York Times has no idea how to cover the madness of Donald Trump."

The Democrats are the party of Satan? Is it a form of some sort of "madness" when a sitting president sends a message like that to his millions of readers? 

Does it start to approach a form of "madness" when he posts ludicrous "deep fake" videos in which he places sombreros on the heads of those Democrats? When he turns them into mustachioed villains—mustachioed villains who are saying that they themselves are nothing but "pieces of shit?"

Is it newsis it reportable news—when a sitting president behaves in such peculiar ways? We'd say the answer is yes! 

But all across the high-end firmament, your mainstream press corps runs and hides. They disappear, or they sanitize, the strange things the president does.

Last night, the analysts watched in stupefaction as a sanitized exchange took place on the PBS show, Washington Week with The Atlantic. Jeffery Goldberg spoke with a panel of four. As you can see by clicking this link, he started with Ashley Parker:

GOLDBERG (10/3/25): Ashley, let's go right to you. You're a veteran White House correspondent. What is Trump getting out of this shutdown?

PARKER: So first, it's not necessarily something he would have chosen, but he likes a fight. He thinks, publicly, gleefully that it benefits him and Republicans politically. I think that still remains to be seen.

He's also enjoying the trolling aspect. I know that's a weird thing to say about the president of the United States, that it was exciting to put a little sombrero on Hakeem Jeffries' hat [sic], but he has sort of enjoyed that aspect. 

Ashley Parker seemed to know that she was discussing something "weird." But what in the world was she talking about? 

The president "put a little sombrero on Hakeem Jeffries' hat?" Goldberg asked her to explain:

GOLDBERG (continuing directly): Wait. Remindremind our "normie" viewers what you're referring to. Because not everybody saw the Hakeem Jeffries meme.

PARKER: Yes. So there was a—it looked like AI-generated meme of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. They were coming out and talking about a meeting and where shutdown negotiations stood, and they basically dubbed it over to have Chuck Schumer saying things like, "Nobody likes the# Democrats." 

And then they doctored Hakeem Jefferies to have a little squiggly mustache and a sombrero on his head.

That wasn't the clearest explanation of all time. For starters, what percentage of "normie" PBS viewers are even familiar with the new-age term, "meme?" 

We'll guess it's well under 100 percent. 

Goldberg could have shown his viewers the videotape which had been posted on Truth Social. He settled for that fuzzy description.

And then, of course, the instant dodge. Brushing past an extremely strange bit of behavior, the two major journos said this:

GOLDBERG (continuing directly): Lincoln used to do this stuff all the time.

PARKER: Yeah.

OTHER PANELISTS: [Laughter]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! In this way, the timorous masters of the universe cleaned up what the president did. 

Parker said the president had "doctored" Jefferies. In turn, these major journalists doctored what the president had said and done.

Goldberg was trying to clue in the "normies." We'll guess that most of his audience didn't know about the sombrero and the bandito mustache the sitting president had plastered on Jeffries' face and head.

We'll also guess that most of Goldberg's audience didn't know what Schumer was actually shown saying on the doctored videotape the sitting president had weirdly posted on his Truth Social site. Timorously, here's what Goldberg and Parker did:

Goldberg didn't simply show the videotape of what Trump had done. He didn't play that videotape, then wonder if there's something truly odd about a sitting American president doing something like that.

He didn't simply show his viewers what President Trump had done. And when Parker gave her slightly fuzzy account of what the "meme" in question was all about, she didn't report the actual words the president, for whatever reason, had placed in Schumer's mouth.

Instead, she cleaned up what the president had Schumer saying. Then the gang enjoyed a good laugh about the "trolling" the commander had done.

In that way, our leading journalists sanitized the president's unusual behavior. They didn't show their viewers what he had done, and they cleaned up the actual words he had put in Schumer's mouth.

This was also true:

The previous night, the president had posted the video calling Dems "the party of Satan." That behavior wasn't mentioned by Goldberg and the others at all! PBS viewers were spared from knowing what the president had done.

Also unmentioned—the president's crazy video about the magical beds! That had been posted the previous weekend, It went unmentioned too!

The Democrats are the party of Satan! In our view, the fact that a sitting president would promote such a claim counts as remarkable news. But today, in the realm of people like Goldberg and Parker, this astounding conduct is suitable for sanitization and is a trigger for laughter.

In our view, timorous people like Lord Jeffrey Goldberg need to get off their ascots and start reporting this president's conduct. In this instance, it's actually different from what O'Donnell said:

These journalists knew exactly what to do with the [peculiar conduct] by President Trump. They knew what they should disappear his strangest posts, and that they should sanitize another.

Send in the clowns, the songwriter said. In this case, it may be time to send out the clowns, and to send the medical specialists in.

Is something wrong with President Trump? We'd say it's time to start asking.

Could there be some sort of cognitive decline? A "personality disorder?"

They agreed not to ask about President Biden. Last night, there they went again!

Also this: We had a hopeful thought last evening. We began to imagine that the president's behavior could become so strange that it actually could tip the political scales.

We Blues would still have a whole lot of explaining to do. We still wouldn't be forced to see our own role in this mess. But we'd be spared from an instant defeat.

That said, they won't be going without a fight this time. Is it time to put the airbrush away? Is it possibly time to stop laughing?


FRIDAY: We recognize what Lawrence said!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2025

So went sacred Troy: This has been an exhausting week over here in the pea patch. 

In the metaphorical language we've developed in the past few years, the Achaeans are rather plainly coming over the walls. It may simply be their turn. 

It may be their turn! But we know of no obvious way to stop them—or to soothe their unregulated fury and their astonishing sense of entitlement.

(We're speaking here of office holders and pseudo-journalists, not of citizen/voters.)

Unregulated as their fury may be, it's often based on valid complaints. It's the size of the fury, and the new nihilism, which makes their assault so exhausting.

Last evening, on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell described the challenge presented by this assault as it has affected him. 

Click here, then move to minute 5. We've felt much the same way all week:

O'DONNELL (10/2/25): The New York Times simply doesn't know how to handle what Donald Trump says and does. I don't know how to handle it, either. 

I feel my way through the Trump mud every day. I don't confidently know what to ignore or what not to ignore.

But I do know I have to think about it. I have to think about it all the time. I have to think about it every day. I have to face it, and I have to decide what aspect of the Trump poison we should examine in the hour we have on this program.

In our view, O'Donnell has been the go-to guy on this topic over the past few months. We recognize the sentiments found in that declaration. 

For the record, Lawrence is paid good money to "think about it every day." It's possible that the counting of blessings might help him continue to push his way through.

We differ from Lawrence in at least one major way. We do believe that we the Blues have relentlessly earned our way out. 

In our view, many of the people coming over the walls are quite reminiscent of "madmen." (We're not talking about regular citizens/voters.) That said, many of the complaints which have spawned their unregulated fury strike us as valid and real. 

It's their inability to regulate their fury which makes their conduct so exhausting. And make no mistake:

Within the Fox News Channel realm—a realm which Lawrence doesn't discuss—the Achaeans are paid extremely good corporate money to behave in the ways they do.

We'd also tell you this:

Plainly, Lawrence feels that President Trump is some version of (seriously) "mentally ill." We've tried to suggest that you consider this possibility:

Someone who is (severely) "mentally ill" is someone who is ill.

In her probing best-seller, Too Much and Never Enough, the president's niece described the way her uncle came to be the way he is. In her assessment, he got a bad break at birth, and things spiraled downward from there, starting with his mother's disabling medical crisis when he was two and a half.

The president's niece has little use for the man he became. She did know how to suggest that we might want to pity the child.

She also noted that sociopathy ("antisocial personality disorder") is widely believed to be heritable, at least in part. Are some people born with a wire hanging loose? If so, they didn't ask to be born that way, or to be born to a father who was, in the opinion of the clinical therapist niece, himself a high-functioning sociopath. 

Beyond that, we'd have to say that we Blues have often dealt with this situation unwisely, if only due to the limitations which are part of the human condition. In the larger sense, we've earned our way out for the past sixty years. Suddenly, it seems that a bill has come due. 

In our view, we've earned our way out in various ways. (That doesn't mean that we're bad people—it means that we're people people.)

Is it true? Have we somehow earned our way out?  We've learned one thing in the past thirty years:

As a general matter, the human brain isn't built to sign on to assessments like that.

Still coming: The New York Times pretends to profile a Gutfeld enabler. Also, who was, or who may have been, the late Charlie Kirk?

Afternoon update: From Mediaite, here's a fuller transcript than we've provided of Lawrence's monologue last night.


WHAT IS MENTAL ILLNESS: The Democrats are the party of Satan!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2025

So he now has said: Go ahead and ask:

Has mental illness been playing a role in the events of this week?

We're speaking here of severe mental illness—mental illness of the serious kind. Has some such form of severe mental illness been involved in the week's events? 

If so, it's as we've been telling you for a very long time. You won't read about it in the New York Times, where they've been telling you this:

Nothing to look at! Just move along! Nothing to look at here!

You won't read about possible "mental illness" in the New York Times. To receive your intimations about that possible part of the realm, you have to journey to Mediaite, where the most prominent report, this very morning, appears beneath this astonishing headline:

Trump Deems Democrats ‘The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan’

Yes, that's what the headline says! And yes, that's what the sitting president has now directly said.

Below, we'll give you the link to that latest Truth Social post. But the news report at Mediaite does include this text:

Trump Deems Democrats ‘The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan’

President Donald Trump deemed Democrats the party of “Satan” on Thursday amid the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.

[...]

On Thursday night, the president went on a mini-posting spree on his Truth Social platform, during which he falsely claimed that he had presided over “record Black employment.”

Perhaps the most notable post, however, was a collage of prominent Democrats, including Schumer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and former President Joe Biden.

“The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan,” text on the image read. “The Democratic Party is Dead! They have no leadership! no message! no hope! their only message for America is to hate Trump!”

There's a bit more to the report. But to see that astonishing Truth Social post, you can just click here.

With that post, the world has changed. Unless we're determined to hide our eyes, the whole world is different now.

Full disclosure! You won't be reading about that post at the New York Times—or you won't be reading about it much. For better or worse, the Times has been whistling past that societal graveyard for a good long time by now.

For better or worse, Times personnel have kept averting their gaze from what has been right there before them. It is that refusal (or that inability) to see and report what's there in the world to which Lawrence O'Donnell referred last night.

He did so right at the start of his most recent diatribe. You can see the opening monologue from last evening's Last Word program at the program's site. 

Once again, O'Donnell went where the "madness" meets the road. If you click to the Last Word site, these are the headlines which summarize the monologue you'll be seeing:

Lawrence: We are clearly seeing madness pouring from the darkness of Donald Trump's mind
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains how Donald Trump posting racist fake videos while refusing to negotiate with Democrats to end the shutdown reveals how Trump’s “madness … has reached new extremes that we haven't seen before even from Donald Trump.”

That's the summary at the Last Word site. Last evening, at 10 o'clock sharp, here's the way O'Donnell  started:

O'DONNELL (10/2/25): Well, the New York Times is lost. 

The New York Times is still the greatest newspaper in America by far, and one of the greatest newspapers in the world. But tonight, the New York Times is lost.

The New York Times has no idea how to cover the madness of Donald Trump. And so the New York Times ignores it, just as the madness of King George the Third had to be ignored by the London Times in 1789.

So said O'Donnell, at the start of a monologue in which he went on to trash the Times for its inability, or for its refusal, to cover the presidents "madness." They simply don't know how to do it, Lawrence essentially said.

At this site, we've been floating these points of concern for a very long time. We first cited the 1994 feature film, The Madness of King George, at least as far back as April 30, 2019

We went there again at the start of this year as we considered the unusual behavior of the president as he started his second and perhaps final term.

At this point, full disclosure:

"Madness" is a colloquial term. It isn't part of clinical diagnostic language. 

Last night, O'Donnell was making an obvious claim. Plainly, he was saying that some form of serious mental illness is involved in what the president has been doing of late—and if you watch his entire monologue, please consider this:

He hadn't seen the president's new Truth Social post at that point in time! He hadn't seen that remarkable post when he continued along from there, saying that the New York Times—and the entire Washington press corps—doesn't have the slightest idea how to cover this "madness."

Again, "madness" isn't a medical term. We also remind you of this:

Any form of severe "mental illness" (the term "mental disorder is now said to be widely preferred) starts as an obvious personal tragedy—as a tragic loss of human potential and capability.

The person gripped by the "mental illness" didn't ask to be so afflicted. For example, he didn't ask to be born to a sociopath, if that's part of the tragic roll of the dice which brought his status low.

That said:

In the case of a major political figure, the presence of some such severe disorder is also a danger for the world. As he continued, O'Donnell gave his due to the greatness of the New York Times—he wouldn't know how to do better, he said—but he also mocked the way the editorial board of that paper analyzed the situation we're in with respect to government shutdown.

O'Donnell isn't a medical specialist. In that sense, much that he said last night took him out over his skis once again. That said:

It seems to us, as it does to O'Donnell, that the president's ongoing behavior—the behavior reported at Mediaite—raises an obvious question about that possible medical tragedy, and about the concurrent danger to the world.

Fullest of full discourses:

At a time of intense tribal division, there is no chance—no chance at all—that you will be able to get the president's tribe to agree on a claim like the claim being made by O'Donnell. 

Also, there's no way to establish the ultimate truth concerning what O'Donnell has said. Meanwhile, though, and once again:

The Party of Hate, Evil, and Satan!

Remarkably, that's the accusation which screams out from the presdident's latest post. People like Vance and Cruz, and Gutfeld and Watters, will find ways to laugh it all off. 

In fairness, Gutfeld and Watters get paid to perform that service. So does the endlessly uncomplaining Dana Perino.

In his monologue, O'Donnell described the way the New York Times keeps averting its gaze from the situation at hand. Once again, a bit of disclosure:

Mental illness—"mental disorder"—is a complex, challenging concept. Physical illness is quite straightforward. So-called mental illness is hard.

What does it even mean if we say that the president may be so afflicted in some serious way? That isn't an easy question to answer—and the mainstream press, from the New York Times on down, has sworn a blood oath, an oath it has kept:

Such questions must never be asked!

Such questions must never be asked! So the press has aggressively said.

At this site, we've shown you, many times, what the president's niece said about her uncle's mental health in her best-selling 2020 book, Too Much and Never Enough. We won't go there again today, but this is the way Simon & Schuster fashioned its author line:

MARY L. TRUMP, PH.D.

The author line was designed to stress the author's academic knowledge, along with her experience as a clinical psychologist. As she listed her uncle's impressive collection of apparent "psychopathologies," she said he might well be a "sociopath," though she made the point that "sociopath" isn't a technical term either.

Colloquially, a sociopath is often thought of as someone who lacks empathy. Stating the obvious, we all lack empathy to some degree—but according to medical science, some people lack that capacity much more than the typical person does.

Nicholas Kristof is off in the world showing what empathy looks like. Kristof appeared on last evening's Last Word. He's showing us what empathy looks like as children are dying around the world from Elon Musk's termination of USAID.

Such empathy itself is now dead to the world. There will be no room for any such archaic feelings until the current tribal war has somehow been resolved.

Are we currently dealing with some sort of mental illness? We'd like to see (carefully selected) medical specialists answer carefully crafted questions about that very topic!

At the New York Times and around the dial, the press has agreed that that must never happen--and it may be just as well that they've done so.  The woods are lovely dark and deep, but even here in our own self-impressed Blue America, our intellectual shortcomings go on and on and on.

They wouldn't know what questions to ask. They wouldn't know how to care, how to think or feel.

At present, we're all faced with the need to come to terms with the various things the sitting president is now saying and doing. We advise you to pity the child, then to proceed from there.

What does it mean when the sitting president keeps saying things, on Truth Social, like the statement he issued last night?

Vice President Vance will be willing to say that it's nothing but a good, funny joke. Watters and Gutfeld will keep snapping their towels—and by the way, their furiously angry tribe has almost surely already won. (We Blues largely earned our way out.)

Dana Perino won't say a word as other women get trashed as "livestock." Senator Cruz (Harvard Law School) will continue placing those sombreros on every Democrat's head!

Democrats are the party of Satan! That's what the afflicted has said!

Lawrence got over his skis once again. Having said that, we'll also say this:

On balance, we'd have to say that Lawrence's aim has been true.

Atop the front page of today's print editions: Atop the front page of the New York Times:

Voters Believe U.S. Can’t Heal Deep Divisions
 Poll Shows a Shift Even Before the Shutdown

 

THURSDAY: Coarse and violent, Mika says!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2025

She refuses to say who she means: Tom Nichols isn't a doctor. He isn't a medical or psychological specialist.

Neither is Lawrence O'Donnell! In our view, O'Donnell has been the go-to guy, within the past month, for reactions to the ongoing conduct of President Trump. But was he possibly over his skies in this presentation on last evening's Last Word?

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Lashes Out at ‘Insane’ Trump in Blistering Rant Calling for His Removal: ‘Trump Has Lost His Mind!’

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell went off on “insane” President Donald Trump in a blistering rant calling for his removal from office under the 25th Amendment.

Trump followed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s address to military leaders Tuesday morning with a lengthy speech that featured several bonkers moments and characteristic deviations—as well as a lot of talk about “enemies” within the United States.

On Wednesday night’s edition of MSNBC’s The Last Word, O’Donnell declared that Trump “has lost his mind” and repeatedly invoked the removal clause while suggesting Vice President JD Vance is getting ready to step in:

O'DONNELL: It sure looked like 25th Amendment day in the White House today, where Donald Trump was not publicly visible, and the vice president of the United States took to the microphone on day one of the government shutdown to basically assure the country, I guess, that he’s in charge. And very specifically and deliberately to draw attention to Donald Trump’s public insanity by actively seeking out an opportunity to talk publicly about Donald Trump’s manifestations of outright insanity.

"Outright insanity" is a rant, not a diagnosis. It involves no actual medical terms. Nor is O'Donnell qualified, in any known way, to talk about such medical issues with any kind of expertise or specialized knowledge.

To his credit, O'Donnell actually is a high-end broadcast journalist. He's also deeply experienced. As such. he's qualified to interview specialists with a greater degree of skill than the average Joe might display. 

Years back, O'Donnell did interview high-ranking medical specialists about the possibility that President Trump was experiencing serious mental health issues. O'Donnell was one of the very few mainstream figures who was willing to ignore the unspoken prohibition of such conduct within the mainstream guild.

As far as we know, he hasn't done so lately. It's always possible that such specialists will no longer speak in public, given the degree of retribution this second term White House has now put on display.

As we've noted, we think O'Donnell has let his disgust for the sitting president cloud his judgment at times. In our view, Tom Nichols was a bit too coy, in the past day or two, as to what he was actually talking about. On last night's show, it seemed to us that O'Donnell broke the other way.

In this morning's report, we spoke about the way Nichols had seemed reluctant to say what he was talking about when he said the president "didn't seem OK"—when he eventually seemed to wonder, in his column for The Atlantic, if the sitting president was "sane." 

We've often told you about a second refusal to speak. We've cited the way journalists at MSNBC refuse to say who they're talking about when they criticize inexcusable, destructive behavior by people on the Fox News Channel.

How bad are things at this point on the Fox News Channel—indeed, in the MAGA world altogether as its hidden secession proceeds? In his new column for the New York Times, David French quotes Ben Shapiro saying this to Ezra Klein:

Incompetence Isn’t an Upgrade Over D.E.I.

[...]

One of the most important distinctions in politics is the difference between people who are mainly motivated to vote against their opponents rather than for their allies. Their hatred or fear of their opponents is far more important than their embrace of any particular policy or ideology.

This concept, called “negative partisanship,” is spreading like a virus across American politics, and it’s reaching its culmination in Donald Trump’s Republican Party. Ben Shapiro, one of the most popular right-wing podcasters in America, recently spoke with my colleague Ezra Klein and described the modern G.O.P. perfectly.

“I think that on the right there is such a rage that has arisen,” he said, “at least on part of the right, that the tendency is to just rip things out by their roots, rather than trying to correct or even determining whether the thing can be corrected.”

Shapiro was describing a type of blind, nihilistic rage on the part of many on the MAGA right. It's a rage which may be built on legitimate complaints, but is characterized by its unregulated fury and sense of entitlement.

We know of no one who has been displaying that rage more promiscuously of late than the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld. Pitifully, his furious conduct has suddenly been swinging in the direction of race-based insult, as opposed his more typical insults based on his fairly obvious, weirdly undisguised devotion to woman hatred.

Something is tragically wrong with that furious, 61-year-old Bay Area child—but over on MSNBC, there seems to exist a policy against the naming of names and against the quoting of poisonous remarks. As reported and transcribed by Mediaite, here was Mika Brzezinski on yesterday's Morning Joe:

‘No! No!’ Joe Scarborough Yells at Wife Mika Brzezinski During MSNBC Clash About Democrats ‘Whining’

[...]

"I also just don’t understand why we’re blaming the Democrats for Republicans lying at the highest levels of office. They have the biggest megaphone. They have TV networks that repeat the lies and say things on those networks with no consequence and the things they say are violent, okay? So they’re not only repeating the lies but adding to this coarseness and there’s no consequence to it, and we’re blaming the Democrats? We’re blaming the Democrats for this. What exactly are the Democrats supposed to do?"

We apologize for subjecting you to Mediaite's silly headlines. That said:

According to Mika, unnamed people on unnamed networks are "repeating lies." Also, they're making violent statements which contribute to the coarseness of our failing discourse. 

Especially in light of some recent incidents, we'll guess that she was talking about Gutfeld's slithery, towel-snapping partner, Jesse Watters, and possibly Brian Kilmeade. But she wasn't willing to name any names, not even of the network in question.

By way of contrast:

On Fox, the children trash Joe and Mika all the time. The dumbest people in the history of American broadcast "news" routinely trash the people whose daily discussions of foreign affairs are the smartest conversations found anywhere around the "cable news" dial.

The flyweights trash Joe and Mika all the time! Judging from appearances, Joe and Mika aren't allowed to even report what is said on Fox.

What was Nichols talking about? Who was Mika talking about? What sorts of coarse and violent things have been said at the Fox News Channel? 

Sorry, Charlie:

All across the Blue American firmament, journalists refuse to report and discuss what the flyweights are doing at Fox. To appearances, no one wants to tussle with Fox. It simply isn't done!

Still coming: The New York Times pretends to profile one of Gutfeld's willing enablers

WHAT IS MENTAL ILLNESS: What was Nichols talking about?

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2025

Wallace agreed not to ask: In Monday morning's report, we cited the old Gil Scott Heron lyric:

The revolution will not be televised.

At the time, we transitioned that lyric as shown:

The truth about the demise of the American nation will not be reported or discussed in the New York Times.

Today, we take things one step further. This very morning, as the Trump administration shuts down funding to more than a dozen Blue American states, we will go ahead and state this largely disappeared fact:

The secession has already happened.

We're speaking here of the second secession. We're speaking of the current secession, the secession which follows on the heels of the secession of 1861.

An irony prevails:

Back then, it was the southern, slavery-endorsing states which chose to secede from the northern states, who had come in control of the White House. 

(That action by those southern states reflects on no one living today.)

Today, it's the political leaders of the Red American states—the political leaders who control the White House—who have chosen to secede from their Blue American counterparts. They're seceding thanks to their political success, not in the wake of their political defeat,.

At any rate, the revolution won't be televised, and that secession won't be announced. Nor will Blue America's tribunes ever report this ongoing state of affairs as clearly as we have just done.

We think today of a striking confession from Jim Sheridan's brilliant 2003 movie, In America.  (The film received Oscar nominations in two acting categories and for best original screenplay.)

Midway through the film, a striking confession occurs. Driven mad by the death of a child, the distraught young father, an Irish immigrant to the U.S., confesses the loss of his person:

You know, I asked [God] a favor. I asked him to take me instead of him—and he took the both of us. And look what he put in my place.

I'm a f***ing ghost! I don't exist. I can't think. I can't laugh. I can't cry.

I can't feel!

We aren't in love with the way that confession was performed. But to watch that confession, click here.

That father couldn't laugh of cry. Today, those of us in Blue America are unable to speak. Our tribunes keep refusing to speak—keep refusing to give us key words.

Is something wrong with President Trump? At this site, we've asked that (fairly obvious) question for a very long time. 

If the answer is yes, that's a personal human tragedy—but it's also a danger to the nation and to the world. As part of our own presentation, we've often transcribed the claims of the president's niece, a doctorate-wielding clinical therapist, about the vast extent of what she described in her best-selling book as her uncle's many "psychopathologies."

The fact that she said it doesn't mean that it's true! But as with President Biden, so too with President Trump:

Over here in Blue America, our corporate tribunes have refused, every step of the way, to ask the obvious question about the possibility that something is seriously wrong:

In yesterday afternoon's report, we discussed the latest example. We discussed this essay in The Atlantic—an essay by Tom Nichols, an impressive and good decent person.

Who the Sam Hill is Brother Nichols? The leading authority speaks:

Tom Nichols (academic)

Thomas Michael Nichols (born 1960) is an American writer, academic specialist on international affairs, and retired professor at the U.S. Naval War College. His work dealt with issues involving Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs.

Born in Holyoke, Massachusetts, Nichols grew up in Chicopee, Massachusetts, where he attended public schools in the 1960s and 1970s...He stated in a speech at the Heritage Foundation that he did not come from an educated family, noting that his parents were "both Depression era kids who dropped out of high school".

Nichols was awarded a BA degree in political science from Boston University in 1983, an MA degree in political science from Columbia University in 1984, a certificate from the Harriman Institute of Columbia University in 1985, and a PhD in government from Georgetown University in 1988. His doctoral thesis was entitled The politics of doctrine: Khrushchev, Gorbachev and the Soviet military.

[...]

Nichols registered with the Republican Party in 1979. He described himself in 2016 as a Never Trump conservative. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Nichols argued that conservatives should vote for Hillary Clinton, whom he detested, because Trump was "too mentally unstable" to serve as commander-in-chief....

And so on from there. Nichols is an impressive, experienced person. He was also refusing to speak in his essay for The Atlantic.

From his first few paragraphs (and his headline) on, Nichols said the president "isn't OK," but he kept failing to say what he specifically meant by that. Yesterday afternoon, this refusal to speak was extended to a lengthy segment of the MSNBC TV show, Deadline: White House, where Nicolle Wallace had assembled a panel of three Blue American tribunes, all of whom failed to speak.

They were refusing to speak—or possibly they simply can't! In the present circumstance, it may be that they simply they don't know how to do so. In the current circumstance, it may be that our human wiring doesn't equip us "rational animals" to engage in such conduct as that.

It may be that we humans aren't built for that line of work! But there sat Wallace, speaking with the three-member panel, and no one ever stood up and was willing—or able—to speak.

Wallace spoke with her three-person panel from shortly after 5 o'clock right on through 5:32. She started with a twenty-minute segment. After a commercial break, a shorter segment followed.

At the Deadline: White House site, you can watch the first twelve minutes of that initial segment. As you will see, the segment is summarized thusly:

Is Trump 'unwell?' New questions emerge after 'striking low-energy and rambling' military speech
Donald Trump's "low-energy and rambling" speech to military leaders on Tuesday is raising new questions about his fitness for office, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace reports. Tom Nichols, Mark Hertling and Maya Wiley join Deadline: White House to discuss.

We'll disagree with one part of that summary. In our view, the second part of that summary should actually say this:

Donald Trump's "low-energy and rambling" speech to military leaders on Tuesday is raising new questions about his fitness for office, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace reports. Tom Nichols, Mark Hertling and Maya Wiley join Deadline: White House to pretend to discuss.

In fact, Wallace was pretending to conduct a discussion with her trio of guests. Their own rambling statements were so disjointed—were so non-specific—that no real discussion or assertion ever emerged.

For starters, let's go with this:

Wallace's initial segment was explicitly built around the essay by Nichols. Rather than simply speak with him about what he had written and meant, she and her producers had assembled that trio of guests.

Nichols was only given one real chance to speak with specificity about what he'd meant when he said, at the start of his essay, that the president "didn't seem OK" when he delivered his rambling address. 

In his essay for The Atlantic, Nichols had eventually seemed to question whether the president is "sane." That had seemed like a very strong insinuation—but so what? In their headline, Wallace' producers had turned their segment into discussion of whether the president is "unwell." 

That's a extremely vague formulation. In its lack of specificity, it gave all the performers, most especially Wallace herself, a safe space in which they could hide.

Along the way, a type of problem had emerged:

A person can be "unwell" in a wide assortment of ways. To some extent, discussion of the president's speech to the admirals and generals had generated questions about possible physical illness. Also, the word "dementia" had been cited by Lawrence O'Donnell.

With all that in mind, what exactly was now being said about the way in which the president may not be OK—may be "unwell?" That never became clear on Deadline: White House. In truth, the segment may have been designed toward that unhelpful end.

Question:

Is dementia a "mental illness?" Using the language which may now be preferred, is dementia a "mental disorder?" 

We find contradictory answers to that question in presentations made by the leading authority. That said, the president's niece had spoken of the likelihood that the president suffers, in effect, from "sociopathy"—and sociopathy (technically, "antisocial personality disorder") is not the same thing as dementia.

So what was Nichols talking about in his Atlantic essay? In his first chance to speak on yesterday show, he sensibly and intelligently told Wallace this:

NICHOLS (10/1/25): What inspired the piece was Trump...I did hear afterwards that, you know, a lot of folks, right? He just doesn't seem well. He's not OK.

I'm not a doctor. I'm not making a diagnosis. I'm saying, as a lay person and a man of advancing years myself, that I looked at the president and I thought, "He's not OK"—and that it's not just his physical demeanor. 

I mean, this—I think for too long we haven't been willing to talk about the weird, rambling—you know, the president tries to call it "The Weave." It's not The Weave. It is some kind of emotional disordered condition where he just cannot hold a thought in his head...And it just disturbed me, and I thought I ought to say something about it.

I'm not a doctor, Nichols said. I'm not making a diagnosis. But this is precisely where the anger here in Blue America should start to flow:

No one else on yesterday's panel was a doctor either! Nichols isn't capable of bringing medical expertise to any discussion of what he saw, but neither were the other two people Wallace's bosses had directed her to pretend to conduct a discussion with.

Listening to what Nichols did say, he seems to be thinking of something like "dementia" as opposed to something like physical illness or "sociopathy." Either way, he isn't able to being specialized knowledge to any discussion of what he saw—and producers had booked two other people who were also unable to do that!

Nearing the end of the first segment, Wallace made matters considerably worse. She recalled the way serious concerns about the president's mental condition had been raised by administration insiders in Trump's first term, as early as 2017 and 2018. 

That had even included the possible removing the president from office through the 25th amendment, Wallace accurately said. Without seeming to understand the sweep of her self-indictment, Wallace was thereby telling us that she and her corporate owners have agreed, for all those years, that we must never discuss the possible shape of those serious concerns.

I can't think. I can't laugh. I can't cry. I can't feel! That's what the distraught father says in that Oscar-nominated film. 

People like Wallace keep refusing to speak. It may be that they can't speak—that they simply lack the requisite intellectual skills. 

But nothing is going to come from their failures, and nothing is going to change what they do. Nichols had suggested that the president may not be "sane." When the subsequent pseudo-discussion was staged, that word never came up.

The revolution won't be televised! Also, the president's possible mental condition will never be discussed on your favorite TV shows.

Had the admirals and generals been watching a person who's "sane?" That was the specific question with which Nichols had ended his essay.

Yesterday, no one uttered that challenging word in the course of a full half hour. Instead, they settled for the fuzzy term, "unwell." 

Everyone knows the rules of these games. Everyone except us rubes out here in Blue America as a second secession takes place.

This afternoon: Mika refuses to say who she means

Tomorrow: Pretending to profile Kat Timpf


WEDNESDAY: Tom Nichols inches towards the question!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2025

The bill has now come due: Over here in Blue America, there exists a tremendous reluctance to come to terms with what seems to be right before us.

We refer to the fairly obvious conclusion that something seems to be wrong with President Trump—that there may be issues of mental health floating around in the mix. 

As we noted in this morning's report, Lawrence O'Donnell has been willing to go there this week, as he has done in the past. Later, over at The Atlantic, we saw an essay by Tom Nichols, found beneath this dual headline:

The Commander in Chief Is Not Okay
Trump put on a disturbing show for America’s generals and admirals.

The president isn't OK, Nichols says. And yesterday's speech was "disturbing."

At least, that's what the headlines say. Below, you see where the relevant part of Nichols' text starts up. Question—is Nichols talking about issues of mental health and mental illness at this point in his piece?

The Commander in Chief Is Not Okay
Trump put on a disturbing show for America’s generals and admirals.

[...]

The president talked at length, and his comments should have confirmed to even the most sympathetic observer that he is, as the kids say, not okay. Several of Hegseth’s people said in advance of the senior-officer conclave that its goal was to energize America’s top military leaders and get them to focus on Hegseth’s vision for a new Department of War. But the generals and admirals should be forgiven if they walked out of the auditorium and wondered: What on earth is wrong with the commander in chief?

Italics by Nichols. We'd say the suggestion is already strong, but it remains a slightly coy suggestion. We're asking you to note the cultural reluctance to raise such a question directly.

As his essay continues, Nichols directs some standard jibes at the president's speech. Soon, though, it seemed to us that he was hinting further:

And so it went, as Trump recycled old rally speeches, full of his usual grievances, lies, and misrepresentations; his obsessions with former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama; and his sour disappointment in the Nobel Prize committee. (“They’ll give it to some guy that didn’t do a damn thing,” he said.) He congratulated himself on tariffs, noting that the money could buy a lot of battleships, “to use an old term.” And come to think of it, he said, maybe America should build battleships again, from steel, not that papier-mâché and aluminum stuff the Navy is apparently using now: “Aluminum that melts if it looks at a missile coming at it. It starts melting as the missile is about two miles away.”

Ohhhkayyyy.

We'd say the insinuation is stronger there, but it's still an insinuation.

The word "unhinged" appears in the next paragraph, though only as a description of the president's "diatribe."  Applied to the president himself, that word has long been a standard journalistic dodge—a standard way of avoiding direct language about his mental state.

A few grafs later, the criticism is possibly stronger, but Nichols seems to be describing a simple act of demagoguing, transferred yesterday to a deeply inappropriate place:

This farrago of fantasy, menace, and autocratic peacocking is the kind of thing that the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan evocatively called “boob bait for the Bubbas” and that George Orwell might have called “prolefeed.” It’s one thing to serve it up to an adoring MAGA crowd: They know that most of it is nonsense and only some of it is real. They find it entertaining, and they can take or leave as much of Trump’s rhetorical junk-food buffet as they would like. It is another thing entirely to aim this kind of sludge at military officers, who are trained and acculturated to treat every word from the president with respect, and to regard his thoughts as policy.

All in all, it's just a bunch of boob bait, Nichols now seems to be saying.

Three paragraphs remain at this point. Does Nichols turn the temperature up—speak with clear precision? The language has started to take a turn in this next paragraph:

But American officers have never had to contend with a president like Trump. Plenty of presidents behaved badly and suffered mental and emotional setbacks: John F. Kennedy cavorted with secretaries in the White House pool, Lyndon Johnson unleashed foul-mouthed tirades on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Nixon fell into depression and paranoia, Ronald Reagan and Joe Biden wrestled with the indignities of age. But the officer corps knew that presidents were basically normal men surrounded by other normal men and women, and that the American constitutional system would insulate the military from any mad orders that might emerge from the Oval Office.

The specter of possible "madness" has now perhaps been raised. This president may not be "normal."

In the penultimate graf, Nichols has the generals wondering "who will shield them from the impulses of the person they just saw onstage," from "his nuttiest—and most dangerous—ideas."  But it isn't until his final paragraph that he lets his message fly:

In 1973, an Air Force nuclear-missile officer named Harold Hering asked a simple question during a training session: “How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?” The question cost him his career. Military members are trained to execute orders, not question them. But today, both the man who can order the use of nuclear arms and the man who would likely verify such an order gave disgraceful and unnerving performances in Quantico. How many officers left the room asking themselves Major Hering’s question?

Accordingto Nichols. officers may have left the room yesterday wondering if the president is sane. Nichols took a long time to get there, and even there, the implication is stated in the form of a question.

Over here in Blue America, our major journalists are very timid when it comes to saying what they mean, and what they must think, about this grotesquely important question. Our own suggestion would be this:

We don't know how to talk about this in the way we might want to do.

We don't know how to talk about this topic! Beyond that, we've failed and we've failed, in various other ways, over the course of the past sixty years, and the bill has now come due.

Regarding this one particular topic:

(Severe) mental illness, with possible dementia included, is always a tragedy. You have to start by saying that.

You have to start by saying that. You have to say it every time. It helps if you know that it's true.

WHAT IS MENTAL ILLNESS: No discussion of mental illness...

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2025

...could ever have saved us from this: Today we have naming of mental disorder. We want to start with a basic point:

No discussion of "mental illness"—no discussion of mental health or "mental disorder"—would or could have saved us from this, or from what is likely to come.

Remember, "it's all anthropology now"—and it has been for a long time. For a long time, there has been no apparent way out of this mess, nor was there any sign that those of us in Blue America would ever know how to find such a path.

Our analytical skills and our powers of empathy simply weren't bult for the task. That said, Lawrence O'Donnell has been speaking about mental illness, quite directly, over the past two nights. 

We'll show you a bit of his language below. Last night, he discussed the speech the sitting president delivered in front of 800 admirals and generals in a crowded and silent room. 

One commentator after another has marked the inanity of the president's "rambling" address. According to CNN's transcript, the president started his address shortly after 9:25 a.m. 

According to that same transcript, this is what the president was saying as 9:50 a.m. came and went—as it came and dragged on by:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (9/30/25): ...One of the first executive orders I signed upon taking office was to restore the principle of merit. That's the most important word, other than the word "tariff."

I love tariffs. Most beautiful word. But I'm not allowed to say that any more. I said, " 'Tariff' is my favorite word. I love the word 'tariff.' " 

You know, we're becoming rich as hell. We have a big case in front of the Supreme Court, but I—I can't imagine, because this is what other nations have done to us. And we have, you know, great legal grounds and all, but you still have a case would be very bad. 

Something happened. But I said, "my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word 'tariff.' " And people thought that was strange. And the fake news came over and they really hit me hard on it.

They said, "What about love? What about religion? What about God? What about wife, family?" I got killed when I said "tariff" is my favorite word. So, I changed it. It's now my fifth favorite word. And I'm OK with that. I'm OK with that. But they hit me hard.

But it is. I mean, when you look at—we've taken in trillions of dollars. We're rich. Rich again. And they'll never be, when we finish this out, there will never be any wealth like what we have. Other countries were taking advantage of us for years and years. You know that better than anybody. And now we're treating them fairly. But the money coming in is—we've never seen anything like it.

The other day they had 31 billion that they found—$31 billion. "Sir, we found $31 billion. And we're not sure from where it came." 

A gentleman came in. A financial guy. I said, "Well, what does that mean?"

 He said, "We don't know where it came." I said, "Check the tariff shelf."

"No, sir, the tariffs haven't started in that sector yet." I said, "Yes, they have. They started seven weeks ago. Check it."

Comes back 20 minutes later. "Sir, you're right, it came from tariffs. $31 billion." 

That's enough to buy a lot of battleships, admiral, to use an old term. 

Well, I think we should maybe start thinking about battleships, by the way. You know, we have a secretary of the Navy. He came to me, because I look at the Iowa out in California, and I look at different ships in the old pictures. 

I used to watch Victory at Sea. I love Victory at Sea. Look at these admirals. It's got to be your all-time favorite. Black and white. And I look at those ships. They came with the destroyers alongside of them. And, man, nothing was going to stop. They were 20 deep and they were in a straight line, and there was nothing going to stop them.

And so on from there.

He used to watch Victory at Sea? It was an early TV show (in "black and white"), first broadcast when he was five years old. The leading authority tells us this:

Victory at Sea

Victory at Sea is a documentary television series about warfare in general during World War II, and naval warfare in particular, as well as the use of industry in warfare. It was broadcast by NBC in the United States during 1952–53....The original TV broadcasts comprised 26 half-hour segments—Sunday afternoons at 3:00 p.m. (EST) in most markets—starting on October 26, 1952 and ending on May 3, 1953.

[...]

After the first run, NBC syndicated it to local stations, where it proved successful financially through the mid-1960s.

And so on from there. The program continued to air through his high school years, which he spent at New York Military Academy, a boarding school which was mocked by his siblings as a "reform school." 

As has been widely reported, he was sent to NYMA because of his aggressive behavior toward younger children at the New York City prep school where his father had sat on the board of directors. After the seventh grade, his father had agreed that his son had to leave the school.

Back to Victory at Sea! Admirals and generals had been flown in to listen to the sitting president dodder along in this way. With respect to his widely-reported mistreatment of the younger children at his original school, we'll offer these deeply unfortunate, tragic facts from the leading authority on the topic of the colloquial term, "sociopathy:"

Antisocial personality disorder

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is a personality disorder defined by a chronic pattern of behavior that disregards the rights and well-being of others. People with ASPD often exhibit behavior that conflicts with social norms, leading to issues with interpersonal relationships, employment, and legal matters. The condition generally manifests in childhood or early adolescence, with a high rate of associated conduct problems and a tendency for symptoms to peak in late adolescence and early adulthood.

[...]

In order to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder under the DSM-5, one must be at least 18 years old, show evidence of onset of conduct disorder before age 15, and antisocial behavior cannot be explained by schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

At present, "sociopath" is not a technical diagnostic term. That said, to be diagnosed with the associated personality disorder, "evidence of onset of conduct disorder" must have appeared before age 15.

The gentleman's niece, a clinical therapist, said in her 2020 best-seller that her uncle could likely be diagnosed with this disorder. To her credit, she was able to pity the child as she laid out the circumstances which may have contributed to this possible state of affairs. 

To what circumstances do we refer? The niece included the fact that sociopathy is believed to be heritable. Also, the fact that president's father, her own grandfather, was, in her stated view, a "high-functioning sociopath."

We're describing here a terrible tragedy, in much the way that it's a tragedy whenever any child is born with any serious illness. That said, whatever the medical truth of this matter might be, no discussion of any such possibility could have saved us in Blue America from what will be coming next.

With that, we return to yesterday's rambling, inane address. Simply put, this president seems to be out on his feet—but very few Blue American journalists or academics, aside from MSNBC's O'Donnell, seem prepared, in any way, to take a stab at a discussion of this apparent fact.

Back to yesterday's crowded hall! The generals and admirals sat in the room, condemned to listen to more than an hour of drivel like the drivel we've posted. And no, our country isn't suddenly "rich"—and no, we haven't been "taking money in" in the way the sitting president insists on saying we have, no matter how many times his misstatement is corrected.

In the passage we have posted, the president even made use of his favorite format—the format which goes like this:

A noun + a verb + "no one has ever seen anything like it."

Also, he made use of this favorite:

A noun + a verb + someone calling him "Sir."

Admirals and general sat in the hall, condemned to well over an hour of this. With regard to those battleships, here's the start of the column by David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

Trump and Hegseth’s backward-facing message to the generals

Here’s the scariest part about Tuesday’s military pep rally: President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—in their focus on grooming, fitness standards and “the enemy within”—seem oblivious to the reality that 21st-century combat will be dominated by drones and artificial intelligence, plus commanders who understand these high-tech weapons.

America’s generals and admirals sat stone-faced as they listened to Trump and Hegseth. They had been summoned to Washington at a moment when they’re struggling to adapt America’s military to dizzying changes in combat systems and doctrine. What they got was a lecture from Hegseth about the threat of facial hair, “fat generals” and lax training—along with a meandering speech from Trump bashing his political enemies.

Trump’s and Hegseth’s speeches were an exercise in military nostalgia. Trump talked about bringing back battleships, a Navy fighting platform that was already outmoded during World War II...

Is Ignatius right about those battleships? At this site, we have no idea. Of one thing you can feel certain:

The admirals and generals do.

Ignatius went with "meandering" as she described this address. Many others settled for "rambling."

Was Tuesday's unusual twin-bill address scheduled as a distraction from the impending government shutdown which was destined to land on that day? We have no idea, but the generals were condemned to hear about how fat some of them are—but also about the 1950's TV show, Victory at Sea.

Also, they head about using American cities as a place to train the military, which Hegseth would make more lethal. On last evening's PBS NewsHour, the highly articulate Capt. Margaret Donovan (ret.) voiced concern about that combination. 

Other observers have sussed that out as the one new thing the president said.

Ignatius went with "meandering" as he described this address. Few observers went where O'Donnell did, giving voice to direct concern about the president's mental functioning.

As for the president himself, he proceeded from the lecture hall to his hall of mirrors. Last evening, he posted another bizarrely insulting deep fake video of his Democratic counterparts.

Is something wrong with President Trump? If so, that's a human tragedy. Once again, Mediaite was willing to report the remarkable thing he did:

Trump Doubles Down With Another Bizarre AI Attack on Hakeem Jeffries

President Donald Trump doubled down on his AI smear campaign against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Tuesday with a second doctored video cut over the Democrat’s MSNBC interview, during which he slammed an earlier deepfake as “disgusting.”

[...]

In the clip ripped from the MSNBC appearance by the president, posted to both X and Truth Social, Jeffries condemns the earlier video as “disgusting” before the video morphs, placing a sombrero and moustache on the Democrat’s face, while an AI-generated mariachi bandeach member with Trump’s faceplayed in the background.

The White House has not yet commented on Trump’s latest video.

The president did that for the second straight night. You can see last night's crazy video as part of the Mediaite report. That said, even Mediaite hasn't yet been willing to report O'Donnell's discussion from last evening's Last Word

Over at the Last Word site, you can watch the heart of O'Donnell's opening monologue, in which he comments on the president's apparent mental and physical health. Thanks to the invaluable Internet Archive, you can also watch O'Donnell's opening monoloue, shared at first with Jen Pskai, simply by clicking here.

At the Last Word site, you can see what O'Donnell had to say after Psaki departed. You'll see him start with this:

O'DONNELL (9/30/25): ...The emergency the United States of America is facing tonight is an emergency the United States of America has created for the world. And that emergency is that the president of the United States, in his public appearance today, proved that he is mentally incapable and emotionally incapable of fulfilling his constitutional duties as president of the United States. 

In other words, there is no president of the United States as we knew it. There is no functioning intelligence, no functioning judgment mechanism within the mind of the current holder of that title, and that person is also the holder of the nuclear codes that could destroy the planet in seconds.

We can't tell you that assessment is wrong. Unfortunately (in our view), the videotape at the Last Word site is headlined and summarized like this:

Lawrence: Trump was 'on the verge of outright insanity' in deranged speech to military commanders
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell details how military commanders who listened to Donald Trump’s “deranged” speech have to be wondering “just how much more dangerous their jobs are now that they've seen just how lost and sick their Commander-in-Chief is.”

We can't tell you that those assessments are wrong. But television is said to be "medium cool," and O'Donnell's anger and disgust have tended to outpace his empathy and intellect as he engages in his discussions of the sitting president's possible mental disorders.

In our view, there's no discussion of mental health or mental illness which could have saved us from what will be coming next. In part, that turns on a massive irony—on the way we Blues refused to acknowledge a somewhat similar fact about the previous sitting president, who had plainly lost several steps, despite Blue America's insistence that there was nothing to look at.

Over here in Blue America, there was nothing to see at the southern border. There was nothing to see about President Biden.

The cost of living? That was all in the public's heads! We joined to that a string of difficult claims about social issues which came to be described as "woke," and we had spent the past sixty years alienating last segments of the population through our insistence that they were perhaps a bit "less."

(Last night, PBS began exploring the start of this era with the debut of its American Experience program, Hard Hat Riot. Question: Does the title of the program undermine its larger point?)

Like the fictional citizens of Camus' Oran, we Blues just haven't been up to the challenge. That said, giant empires have always come undone. Our human wiring wasn't built for the task of keeping behemoths intact.

Joined by almost no one else, O'Donnell is willing to see what's sitting right there before him. But he's speaking too late, and his tone is too hot, and the die had long been cast.

No discussion of mental illness could ever have saved us from what will be coming next. That said, if you plan to discuss mental illness, it's important to recognize this:

Severe "mental disorder" / mental illness is always a human tragedy. A person needs to establish that point.

It helps if he really believes it. Within the tribal context, almost no one does.

Tomorrow: In search of human capability! The New York Times profiles Kat Timpf

Friday: Wikipedia on "Human"