EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: He's a moral pygmy, one analyst said!

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2025

The moral over the medical: Oofbut also, world without end! Last evening, sure enough, there he went again:

Trump Lashes Out at ‘Dead Man Walking’ Stephen Colbert, Demands CBS ‘Put Him to Sleep NOW’

President Donald Trump lashed out at Late Show host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday evening, branding Colbert a “dead man walking” and urging CBS to “put him to sleep.”

“Stephen Colbert is a pathetic trainwreck, with no talent or anything else necessary for show business success,” wrote Trump in a Truth Social post. “Now, after being terminated by CBS, but left out to dry, he has actually gotten worse, along with his nonexistent ratings.”

He continued, “Stephen is running on hatred and fumesa dead man walking! CBS should, ‘put him to sleep,’ NOW, it is the humanitarian thing to do!”

And so on from there, again and again. World without end, amen!

In the face of this endless conduct, we've been suggesting that you pity the child. But what could we mean by that?

Let's return to Monday, December 15one day after the murder of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner. President Trump took to Truth Social and voiced his reaction in the unusual manner, as shown:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!

That was the president's latest "truth." That afternoon, he doubled down on what he had said as he responded to a question right there in the Oval Office.

That was an extremely strange reaction to this vicious murder. That said, the reaction that night on MS NOW also struck us as strange. 

The president's peculiar behavior was almost wholly unmentioned on that network that night. But at 4 p.m., on Deadline: White House, Nicolle Wallace and a trio of guests stated their views about the president's conduct in a pair of opening segments.

We were struck by what they said. The four are all good, decent peoplebut none of the four suggested that the sitting president might seem to be mentally ill.

(Just our luck! Even as we type, the invaluable Internet Archive reports that it's "currently offline." For that reason, we can't give you clips of what each of these four people said. Later, you'll be able to watch their full discussion simply by clicking here. For today, we'll work from the notes we took in real time.)

We were struck, but not surprised, by what the four people said. They treated the president's bizarre behavior as a moral failure, not as the possible effect of an actual "illness."

"The man is a pygmy, unsuited for the office" / "He's morally vacuous, intellectually insipid," Michael Feinberg said. The four people didn't intend to "lower ourselves to Trump's level," Nicolle Wallace understandably said.

We were struck, but not surprised, by this approach to this extremely unusual conduct. It's been a rule for a very long time:

Our journalists will refer to "mental illness" when discussing types of violent street crime. But any such discussion must stop at the water's edge when it comes to the major figures who people our national politics.

Like many rules, this was a very good ruleuntil such time as it wasn't. In the case of the current president, two different best-selling books had put the word "dangerous" in their titles as medical specialists offered such assessments as this:

Prologue: Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man (Mary L. Trump, 2020)

[...]

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

[...]

Does Donald have other symptoms we aren’t aware of? Are there other disorders that might have as much or more explanatory power? Maybe. A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy but can also refer to chronic criminality, arrogance, and disregard for the rights of others...

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

He could be a "sociopath," the president's adult niece said. She had known him when she was a child, but also as an adult. She had even worked with him on a book-writing project when she was 29 years old.

She was a doctorate-holding clinical psychologist, and she viewed her uncle as dangerous in the extreme. Along the way in her best-selling book, she noted the fact that so-called "sociopathy" can be bred in the bloodcan be passed on from parent to child. 

According to current medical science, so it can go with tragic examples of body-based "mental illness"with illnesses which rob the afflicted party of normal levels of human functioning.

Is President Trump "mentally ill" in some such way? Astoundingly yet not astoundingly, major journalists cling to the rule in which such questions can't be askedin which bizarre behavior can be discussed by members of their own guild, but not by medical specialists.

It's often said that "sociopaths" are robbed of empathy by their illness. So it almost might seem to be when the sitting president engages in the peculiar behavior he now displays on a daily basis. 

We'll offer this small bit of context:

Under prevailing rules of assessment, those of us who qualify as "good, decent people" also have obvious limits on the extent of our empathy. Very, very few of us normal people ever decide to push our own power of empathy to the limit:

We don't venture off to save the world's suffering children, as a handful of highly unusual people actually do. We don't relocate to smaller houses so we can support our favorite charities to a greater extent.

That doesn't mean that we're bad people; it simply means that we're people people. And at present, when we normal people are confronted by someone who (plainly) seems to be "mentally ill," we're inclined to say so in certain contextsbut we'll doggedly stick to the rules of the guild in the most dangerous circumstances.

That's simply what we the people are like. Disastrously, those of us afflicted with ASPD will have access to even less empathy than that!

To our eye and to our ear, the president's conduct has been screaming "mental illness" for a very long time now. 

We don't mean that as an insult. We mean it as a tragic statement concerning the loss of human potential.

In 2017, then again in 2020, medical specialists in best-selling books offered warnings about this state of affairs. The key word "dangerous" sat right there in the title of each of these books.

Even in the face of those assessments, our overpaid corporate journalists have insisted on sticking to the long-standing rules of their guild:

The moral insults flow thick and fast. The possible or apparent medical perspective is uniformly disappeared.

In Mary L. Trump's book, she savaged the disordered conduct of her "dangerous" adult uncle. She also allowed us to "pity the child," through her account of the way she says he became the dangerous person he is.

In her book, Mary L. Trump cites the possibility that her uncle's possible "sociopathy" could have been bred in the bonecould have been passed down from his father, "a high-functioning sociopath." But she also tells us this:

Symptoms of sociopathy include a lack of empathy, a facility for lying, an indifference to right and wrong, abusive behavior, and a lack of interest in the rights of others. Having a sociopath as a parent, especially if there is no one else around to mitigate the effects, all but guarantees severe disruption in how children understand themselves, regulate their emotions, and engage with the world.

Children of sociopaths grow up in great danger. In the general area of mental health, the sitting president seems to have grown up with all the disadvantages found in a family like his.

For some time, we've suggested you "pity the child"but with respect to a figure like President Trump, no such thing will occur in our lifetimes. Somewhere ages and ages hence, we Americans may have evolved to the point where we can conduct intelligent discussions of "mental illness," even when major public figures are involved.

At some point, we may be able to do so empathetically, even saying such things as this:

"There but for fortune! There but for fortune go we."

We aren't up to that task today. In the case of President Trump, our angry insults in Blue Americaour attempts to criminalize his gruesome behavior; our attempts to get him locked upmay have greased his skid back into the Oval Office. 

We still refuse to give voice to a fairly obvious fact about his possible medical condition. Sadly, we'll tell you this:

History remembers the good and decent peoplethe people who knew how to forgive. History remembers Nelson Mandela, but also our own Dr. King. 

The families of Dylan Roof's murders in Charleston were admired all over the world.

President Trump is a pygmy, we Blues were told on Deadline: White House that day. It was a pleasing "cable news" momentbut is the president simply "ill?" And what exactly is keeping us from letting the old frameworks go?

Briefly, let's be honest. We the "good, decent people" aren't perfect fountains of empathy ourselves. We humans aren't built for that.

There's a limit on the amount of empathy which takes shape even within such people as us. Tragically, people afflicted with certain types of "mental illness" are built to be even worse!

Do you believe in mental illness? At this site, we continue to ask.

ADDENDUM: Professor Brabender's great anthropological finding helps explain the impulse under discussion:

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

Brabender voiced his finding all the way back in the 1960s. Anthropologically, it helps explain the history of the species:

War without end, amen.

 

231 comments:

  1. Moral Pygmy

    “Looks like Honduras is trying to change the results of their Presidential Election. If they do, there will be hell to pay!” Trump post on Truth Social. - Dec. 1, 2025

    “So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.” - Trump to Georgia election officials. - Jan. 2, 2021

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fulton County admits to verifying 315,000 votes in 2020 without poll worker signatures
      https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/fulton-county-admits-to-verifying-315-000-votes-in-2020-without-poll-worker-signatures/ar-AA1SRuoy

      Delete
    2. Why not tell people what happened, including the FACT that the election was heavily audited and that this clerical error would not have affected the outcome:

      "“We do not dispute that the tapes were not signed. It was a violation of the rule,” Brumbaugh said. “They should have done it.”

      According to Brumbaugh, since the 2020 vote, the county has made significant changes to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

      “Procedures have been updated. People are taking this very seriously now,” she said. “Since then, the training has been enhanced, the poll watchers are trained specifically. They’ve got to sign the tapes in the morning, and they’ve got to sign the tapes when they’re run at the end of the day.”

      Causing more concern, the unsigned tapes — around 130 of them from voting machines — accounted for some 315,000 early voters in 2020, almost every ballot cast before Election Day.

      “At best, this is sloppy and lazy,” said Janelle King, a Republican member of the State Elections Board. “At worst, it could be egregious, and it could have affected an election.”

      The revelation made waves nationally. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger downplayed the error, saying it wouldn’t have changed the results of the heavily audited election.

      “A clerical error at the end of the day does not erase valid, legal votes,” the secretary posted online. “Georgia has the most secure elections in the country and all voters were verified with photo ID and lawfully cast their ballots.”

      Delete
    3. Raffensperger is also a Republican.

      Delete
    4. Pretty rich bitching about supervisor signatures when the fascists have been removing millions of suspected black people from the voting rolls every election year.

      Delete
    5. A couple more things to highlight the utter bullshit of DiC's post:

      1. The headline, from 'Atlanta News First' claiming 315,000 votes were verified withhout a poll worker signature, makes it sound as if 315,000 people waltzed into a voting booth without having their signature verified.

      But according to the article, what happened was much less sinister.

      There are something called 'tabulator tapes' that are supposed to be signed off on by poll workers, and it was these that were not signed, and which Republican Georgia Secretary of State (who says he voted for Trump) described as a clerical error, since they had no impact on the signature verifications of individual voters.

      2. Trump had no idea about this issue when he made the call to Georgia, so this is a bit of a red herring at this point.

      Trump had been told repeatedly by his Department of Justice, by his Office of General Counsel, by his campaign staff, and on the phone call, by Georgia election officials, that there were no problems with the election.

      But he kept pestering and badgering, and pleading like a little bitch, seeking to have the Georgia officials change the results of the election.

      Just like a moral pygmy would do.

      Delete
    6. Quaker in a BasementDecember 24, 2025 at 2:41 PM

      David, you often criticize news stories and headlines that use language you think is ambiguous or misleading. Do you think the headline you posted is informative? I can see how someone could think that 300k+ ballots were each missing a required signature. That isn't what happened.

      Delete

    7. 315,000 votes were certified without necessary signatures.

      Weren't you idiot-democrats the greatest sticklers for "due process" just a few days ago? And so today "due process" is a useless formality?

      Thanks for the laughs, Democrats.

      Delete
    8. 'Due process' is a term most often used in a legal context to ensure fair treatment in the legal system, or in some governmental matter.

      It isn't relevant to the kind of clerical errors that the grownups are discussing here. There's no evidence the lack of signatures on the tabulator tapes created any unfairness for anyone.

      Delete
    9. Quaker - Frankly I don't know enough to decide whether this was just a formality or a serious error that could have changed the election. I copied the article from MSN, who I think of as more liberal than conservative.

      Delete
    10. Maybe you will feel better knowing that Raffensberger, who is a Republican himself and very concerned with fair elections, explicitly stated that this was a clerical error that had no effect whatsoever on the election results. He said that he knew that because of how thoroughly the election had been audited and the care taken to verify voter eligibility to cast a ballot (using ID) and to ensure votes were counted properly. That should reassure you. If you still hold suspicion after that, then I think it is motivated by something besides confusion over the process.

      Delete
    11. David, MSN aggregates news from other outlets.

      Delete
    12. "or a serious error that could have changed the election."

      It's interesting that you're scrupulously neutral about the possible effects of these unsigned documents, even though there's no hint of any problem with the data on the documents.

      But you were as I recall, quite proud to credit as one of Trump's 'accomplishments' a drop in the national crime rate, which is an infinitely more complex situation in which drawing definitive conclusions should be infinitely more difficult.

      It's just so interesting.

      Delete
  2. "Children of sociopaths grow up in great danger. In the general area of mental health, the sitting president seems to have grown up with all the disadvantages found in a family like his."

    The other children who grew up in the same family, with the same parents as Trump were not warped the way Trump is. Whatever the disadvantages were, those other kids did not become malignant narcissists or psychopaths themselves. I think Somerby needs to go back to the drawing board and find a different excuse for Trump's ongoing criminal behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Children of sociopaths are in great danger because their parents may physically abuse them and even murder them if they lose their temper, abuse drugs or alcohol and physically neglect them, fail to take them to the doctor when ill, use them to act out their own cruelty by burning them with cigarettes or locking them in a closet for extended times, etc. Psychological abuse of a child will cause lifelong misery but will not make the children into sociopaths themselves or fundamentally change their personalities. The presence of helping others in the environment will mitigate the child's suffering and enable the child to develop more realistic self-esteem and identity in the face of abuse. Somerby's idea that being raised by a sociopath results in little sociopaths is wrong. You can see this by looking at Trump's siblings, none of whom turned out anything like Trump.

      Delete
    2. Pretty sure it is because he is a super rich super privileged super stupid POS.

      Delete
    3. Trump's siblings:

      Maryanne Trump Barry, a judge who had to retire due to corruption.

      Elizabeth Trump Grau, little is known about her other than she is the only living sibling.

      Fred Trump Jr., raging alcoholic that died young.

      Robert Trump, was an executive at Trump Org, aka Trump Crime Family, ran Trump's casino that went bankrupt, his first wife tried to commit suicide when she found out he was having, he was corrupt receiving a $33 million dollar contract for his company during Trump's first term.

      That Trump's siblings are trash is hardly surprising since their father was an abusive loon that supported the KKK as well as the Nazi German American Bund.

      Delete
    4. You have demonstrated that perhaps corruption runs in the family, but not sociopathy.

      Delete
    5. Yes, because the pertinent issue with Trump is his corruption, not his possible sociopathy.

      We already know that things like ASPD are not bred in the bone but primarily from environment; in Trump's case, from his horrific father, who raised his siblings to also be nasty people.

      Delete
    6. Here is what AI says:

      "Yes, sociopathy (Antisocial Personality Disorder) has a genetic component, meaning traits can run in families, but it's not purely inherited; it's a complex mix where genetics create a predisposition, and significant environmental factors like childhood abuse, neglect, or trauma often trigger or worsen its development. Research suggests genetics account for a substantial portion (around 50-67%) of antisocial behavior risk, but life experiences are crucial for how these traits manifest."

      So, both environment and genes contribute. If the genes producing the traits of psychopathy are not there, parental abuse is not going to make someone a sociopath. They will be affected, but in some other way.

      Delete
    7. AI is a useful tool but with limitations.

      A commenter the other day explained it well.

      The research only points to correlation to heritability, not causation. And even the correlation links are weak.

      Delete
  3. Trump doesn't need empathy. He needs constraints to keep him from acting on his cruel and illegal instincts. The Supreme Court finally stepped up, but it is too little too late. My hope is that Trump's illnesses will take him down soon, because he kills more people. Meanwhile, urging empathy for a person like Trump is inappropriate. Trump is not the victim. The people he is harming are the victims and I am reserving my own empathy for them, not the monster that misguided Republicans thought it would be fun to elect as president.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So anyone who grew-up under the Reagan Presidency has an excuse fort their criminality, because they were raised by sociopaths?
    Interesting theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse is related to blame.

      Right wingers are obsessed with assigning blame (generally to absolve themselves of any responsibility).

      It is more salient to focus on root causes.

      Reagan's right wing extremism, his neoliberalism, his neoconservatism, ushered in a precariousness that has dragged down our society.

      Poverty impacts everything from crime rates to cognitive functioning (not cognitive capability).

      Since Reagan came to the fore, $50+ TRILLION has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

      Delete
    2. Ronald Reagan is way more responsible for giving us Trump than any Left-winger is.

      Delete
  5. "Briefly, let's be honest. We the "good, decent people" aren't perfect fountains of empathy ourselves. We humans aren't built for that."

    Humans are absolutely "built" for empathy, going back to our hunter-gatherer days, hundreds of thousands of years ago. We lived in family groups and later in clans. The cohesion of such groups depended on sharing food and helping those who were injured or sick, raising other people's kids when necessary, acting as a group to hunt and protect children and elderly against threats. All of that is held together by empathy, understanding the needs of others and being willing to meet them, to help. That is how humanity survived and evoled. And empathy truly is "bred in the bone". This is what people are like normally. Trump is an aberration, unwilling to help anyone without something in it for him. Able to hurt others in cruel ways without flinching. A monster in our midst.

    Somerby has things ass-backwards today. When you invent anthropology in order to excuse a miscreant like Trump, how can your statements make sense? And they don't.

    And now Somerby hints that he doesn't believe in mental illness. You would think that Trump would convince him of it. In contrast, why wouldn't Nick Reiner convince Somerby of the existence of mental illness? He has schizophrenia. His delusions drove him to kill parents he likely loved. When the mind is malfunctioning, it is pretty obvious and no one who has lived with mental illness doubts its existence. Somerby political abuse of the term is an insult to all who are suffering from such illnesses as major depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, post-partum depression, yes schizophrenia, the major axis disorders. Personality disorders like Trump's narcissism and sociopathy are not considered mental illness. Somerby's inability to understand the DSM does not mean it is wrong and that no such thing as mental illness exists. This is a slap in the face to all families struggling with such illness and it is cold of Somerby to try to talk their trials away to absolve Trump. Talk about lack of empathy!

    Somerby has previously hauled out Thomas Szasz, who declared that mental illness was social in nature and that it reflected labeling inflicted on people who were out of step with society, not ill. His complaints about the medical model were valid, but his suggestion that schizophrenia and other major malfunctions of the mind are merely a social punishment for being disobedient to authority. No one supports Szasz's ideas now because we have neuroscience and neuropsychiatry to confirm mental problems, and new drugs that help with symptoms. These would not work if mental illness were imaginary or a matter of social maladjustment or nonconformity. But Somerby has no context for reading or understanding what the symptoms listed in the DSM look like in real life. That makes him an ignorant fool saying foolish things.

    I do not pity Somerby because educating yourself is a matter of effort and he has chosen not to do the work involved. That's his choice, but when he spouts nonsense as a result, that is on him.

    You don't have to be religious to understand that Trump exemplifies evil, is a criminal, has no relationships with actual people (even his children and spouse) and is doing great harm to our nation. We need to protect our country from Trump by having the courage to use the measures provided in our constitution, specifically for such situations. Trump needs to be removed via Article 25 or via impeachment and removal by Congress. ASAP. He is not getting any better, but is more out of control with each passing day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How long to write this post? It's Xmas eve, get a life.

      Delete
    2. You could ask Somerby to answer the same question.

      Delete
    3. Writing an entire sentence that makes sense takes weeks, if not months for Right-wingers.

      Delete
  6. Taking the Brabender quote out of context does not prove that people are inherently warlike throughout history. This is Somerby being his silliest. Baseball is not war.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looking at some of the unusual, inappropriate things Donald Trump's said is fine. But, how can you evaluate his mentality unless you also look at his remarkable achievements?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump has no remarkable achievements. He is showing that money buys a lot and that there are gaps in the functioning of our democratic system, but that is not Trump's achievement. It is our nation's failure. Trump is despicable. You don't call it an achievement when a mass murdered shoots up a family gathering. Trump's actions are comparable to those sorts of crimes and have hurt too many people.

      Delete
    2. David, you cannot call Trump's actions "achievements" and still consider yourself a good person, no matter what Somerby says.

      Delete
    3. @12:33 - Do you call it an achievement when a lot of murders are prevented?
      The U.S. is on pace for the largest one-year drop in murders the nation has ever recorded, according to an analysis by crime stats expert Jeff Asher.

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/us-murders-on-pace-for-largest-one-year-drop-on-record/ar-AA1SXi9p

      Delete
    4. From the article you rushed here to fluff Trump with yet again, DiC, breathlessly crediting Trump:

      “The decline in killings is part of a broader decrease in violent crime following the COVID-era spike.”

      And:

      “President Trump has prioritized cracking down on violent crime in his second term, though there is no clear evidence linking his policies to the decline. Crime rates have been declining since 2021, according to data from both the RTCI and FBI.”

      Delete
    5. Total refutation of DiC. Can't wait to see his acknowledgement of his error.

      Delete
    6. Fuck you fascist David.

      Delete
    7. Total refutation of DiC.

      This is where Dickhead in Cal heads for the tall grass. LOL

      Delete
    8. Trump inherited $400 million and threw it all away on failed business ventures that led to multiple bankruptcies.

      Trump was then bailed out by Russian mobsters.

      I mean, that is a remarkable; Trump is remarkably corrupt and criminal.

      Delete
    9. Trump has many flaws and failures. But, personal wealth is not one. He's currently worth $6 billion.

      Delete
    10. Is it really his if he stole it?

      Delete
    11. “ He's currently worth $6 billion.”

      How much of that accrued after he took office?

      Delete
    12. Until you've been blackmailed by Russia, you have no idea how hard it is to achieve.

      Delete
  8. Our legal system excuses crimes emerging from mental illness because the punishment would not cure the misbehavior and because the person doesn't understand why they are being punished, making it cruel. Otherwise, people are expected to conform to laws in order to protect other members of society, not morally reform anyone.

    I don't see how the moral vs illness argument makes any difference when assessing Trump's behavior. He clearly needs to be prevented from harming those under his authority. The failure of Congress and others to protect the nation from Trump's crimes is egregious and cowardly. Somerby's impotent musing about what is causing Trump's wrongdoing does not excuse Trump or those responsible for overseeing his work as president. There is massive failure resulting from fear of Trump's threats (he behaves like a mob boss), personal greed and power lust, and stupidity.

    When Somerby raises these irrelevant considerations, the effect is to protect Trump and to enable his ongoing harm. That is Somerby's moral failing, since I do not believe Somerby is showing any signs of mental illness himself, only of age-related cognitive decline. Somerby is right that the press should call attention to Trump's failures. He is wrong about what is causing Trump to act as he does. But Somerby doesn't have to diagnose Trump to call out his failures and he should have been doing since 2015. Instead he has allied himself with those enabling Trump's crimes. That is on Somerby and it is a moral problem, not mental illness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mental illness is a rabbit hole. It's not an explanation for bad behavior. If a kid behaves poorly he's a spoiled brat, his bad behavior was rewarded by his parents so his behavior continues. Same goes with Trump. Seems as though he's been a jerk all of his life. Look what it has gotten him. He's the President of the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Somerby, you apparently don’t possess the proper amount of empathy for poor Donald.

      Delete
    2. Is that a moral failing?

      Delete
  10. Here’s another one to stuff in your pipe and smoke it DiC:

    “How Did DOGE Disrupt So Much While Saving So Little?”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/doge-musk-trump-analysis.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The failure of DOGE almost seems quaint now considering all the horrible things Trump has done since then.

      Delete
    2. As the Bible says, "Let he who has tripled the deficit and starved poor children cast the first stone."

      Delete
  11. "At some point, we may be able to do so empathetically, even saying such things as this:

    "There but for fortune! There but for fortune go we."
    We aren't up to that task today. "

    As near as I can tell, Trump is suffering no consequences for the many wrong things he has done as president, or as a pretend-billionaire working on TV, or as a deadbeat philanderer before that. On what basis, then, is Somerby urging empathy toward him?

    Many high functioning sociopaths are not criminals and do not hurt other people. That is because they are raised to be good citizens and family members, regardless of what they may feel in terms of empathy for others. If they only understand empathy intellectually, or feel nothing at all in response to other people's problems, at least they have learned not to hurt others and to obey the law. That is the result of good parenting.

    OK, Trump lacked such parenting so he has grown up with no respect for law or other people, especially authority figures. He is not high functioning, despite David's admiration for his achievement (obviously ignoring his deficits and mistakes). That doesn't mean he should be pitied. It means he shouldn't have ever been elected president. He lacks the ability to do the job properly.

    Psychological diversity, different brain organizations resulting in different abilities and competences in behavior, imply that we must take such differences into account when matching people to jobs, as well-run businesses generally do. Trump is in the wrong job and never should have been expected to carry out the functions of chief executive. For one thing, he cannot read. For another, he doesn't give a damn who he hurts as long as he gets what he wants, he lies and he cheats at everything.

    Somerby is trying really hard to make this a moral issue for us Democrats. He suggests we should show empathy to Trump, trying to weaponize left wing feelings to excuse and support Trump during this time when his past actions are catching up with him. That isn't what empathy is for and not how it works.

    It is not true that "there but for fortune" goes anyone else. Trump made choices when confronted with opportunities. He consistently made the wrong ones, based on greed and self-interest. He bears responsibility for his own choices.

    Others might be born sociopaths too but make different choices. They might choose to become a surgeon out of intellectual understanding and fascination with how medicine can fix people's problems. Their lack of empathy enables them to cut into others without concern for their pain. Cutting people up is an unnatural act that sociopathic surgeons become very good at. The fact that many of their patients will die despite their best efforts doesn't prevent them from continuing in their field. Computer people and scientists are sometimes sociopaths. That endeavor enables them to be intellectually consumed by a problem, working without human interaction for days on end toward a goal motivated by curiosity, not the desire to help or serve or benefit others. Sociopaths often do important jobs that others cannot do.

    Trump has no curiosity, so he is very ignorant yet he doesn't realize his own lack of knowledge, so he makes many mistakes based on incomplete understanding of what he is doing. He cannot read, but he also chooses not to listen when others try to explain things or read them to him, or even watch the videos they create to educate him. He lacks interest in the content of his job because he doesn't care about people or the country or the problems we are facing, or relations with other nations. That lack of interest in others is not exactly sociopathy, but it handicaps him in his job as president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cont.

      The worst part of Trump's upbringing was not his harsh father's discipline, but that his parents allowed him to find pleasure in hurting other people, which Trump calls "winning," and never gave him any goals beyond accumulating wealth in a contest with others (who he calls losers). He uses women in that contest because he doesn't consider women people (nor men either), but pieces on a game board, to be manipulated for his own acquisition of prizes. He seeks admiration but doesn't actually care about the people who give it. It doesn't matter much to Trump whether the prizes he "wins" are trophies, other people's possessions (someone's favorite painting, Venezuelan oil), honors, bitcoin, donations and purchases by rubes, tariffs or golf championships gotten by cheating. He steals what he wants, if people do not give it freely. These empty honors and trophies are all symbolic of winning to Trump. Now he wants to acquire whole countries, such as Greenland.

      We the people will stop what is happening if the Republicansa do not correct the problem. I am worried that the process will do more harm that could have been prevented if only Republicans had placed the nation and its people ahead of their own personal priorities. That is their moral failing.

      Trump is not like other sociopaths and has his own unique combination of pathologies. Mary Trump said that. But it should have been obvious from the start that Trump was unfit to be president. The disregard of the social sciences exhibited on the right is partly to blame for putting such a horribly unqualified person on their ticket. There is also the toleration of Russian interference in our election that resulted in the most unfit person to ever run being elected via manipulation of our electoral system.

      It bothers me that people are still treating Trump as if he were normal when he has never been, and has been getting worse by the layering of dementia onto his other problems. What will it take to see that Trump is unfit and remove him? Why are people still pretending that anything happening today is normal? It is a joke to talk about morality and Trump in the same sentence. It is also a joke to call his psychological deformities "mental illness" when they are lifelong conditions (now complicated by cognitive decline). I blame Republicans, not the press, for encouraging Trump to destroy our nation. They not only accepted Trump but tolerated the intrusion of Russia into our processes, all for the sake of their own money and power. That is their moral failing. Trump is deluded but his cronies know exactly what they are doing.

      Delete
    2. What will it take to see that Trump is unfit and remove him? Why are people still pretending that anything happening today is normal?

      Have you all seen an old Twilight Zone episode entitled "It's a Good Life"? In which a 6-year-old boy terrorizes his parents and neighbors. We are living thru that Twilight Zone episode right now.

      Delete
    3. How did it end?

      Delete
    4. An adult got drunk and expressed anger at the boy so the boy caused it to snow, which would kill the crops and lead to starvation.

      Many people have made the connection of Trump to this boy.

      The horror of the boy's unchecked authoritarianism is matched by the horror of the adult's compliant nature.

      Delete
    5. How did it end? Not well, just as it will not end well here. Anyone who showed courage to oppose and discipline the child ended up in the corn field or transformed into a jack-in-the-box.
      The Supreme Court here today handed absolute power to a madman. How do you think it will turn out?

      Delete

    6. It'll end with the swamp (including all the Soros-bots) being drained, hopefully.

      Delete
    7. Almost comically, Trump is bringing the swamp, not draining it.

      Delete
    8. It's no longer 'the swamp'. It's the Donald J. Trump Golden Wetlands.

      Delete
    9. The Supreme Court limited Trump's ability to send troops to Chicago today. What are you talking about "handed absolute power to a madman"?

      Delete
    10. That phrase could be applied to the ruling that Trump enjoys personal immunity in the performance of his executive actions.

      Delete
  12. NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—At a tense all-hands meeting on Wednesday, editor-in-chief Bari Weiss announced that, going forward, CBS News will institute a zero-tolerance policy towards news.

    “Someone tried to slip some news into this past Sunday’s episode of ‘60 Minutes,’” a visibly angry Weiss told the gathering. “Fortunately, I was able to catch it in time.”

    She reminded the newsroom that “as journalists, we all answer to a higher master: David Ellison.”

    Next Sunday, CBS will air the first Weiss-edited episode of “60 Minutes,” now called “4 Minutes.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weiss is garbage.

      Delete
    2. The head of CBS News is controlling CBS’s news. That’s her job.

      Delete
    3. Weiss is censoring CBS News, 4:08's hypocrisy is hilarious.

      With Republicans it is always rules for thee but not for me.

      Delete
    4. Judging by the squealing, it sounds like draining the swamp is going well.

      Delete
    5. Weiss IS CBS News. If some outside party overruled her decisions, that would be censorship.

      What's happening here is the normal unhappiness of underlings when a new manager comes in and implements changes. I've been there. It's emotionally satisfying for the old-timers to imagine that they were doing things right and they ought t to continue behaving as they had been. Usually the new manager wins this dispute. Old-timers would be wise to get on the new manager's track ASAP|.

      Delete
    6. "Weiss IS CBS News."

      Someone's authoritarianism is showing....

      Delete
    7. Authority is reality. In organizations where I worked, when new boss comes in, that boss has total power to replace every single subordinate if h/he wants to. I woiuld assume that the same is true for CBS News. So, the output is whatever is decided by Weiss and her chosen subordinates.

      BTW there apparently was a serious flaw. It didn't include the response from the Trump Administration.

      Delete
    8. Weird how the two highly respected CBS Nightly News anchors quit after that fascist Bari came in. But we can't have the news "be the enemy of the people" per Trump and his merry cabinet of billionaire overlords, right fascist David? I will give Bari credit for her brilliant grifting for cash from the deranged idiot Maga cult. Idiots like you David. And fuck you too David

      Delete
    9. No flaw fuckhead, their response was "refusing to answer." Journalism 101 you idiot.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Granted that Bari Weiss is not as far left as some, she is a liberal. I am virtually certain that she never voted for Donald Trump.

      Delete
    12. go take a flying fuck, Dickhead. Go troll with your maggot friends somewhere else tonight, you depraved fascist freak.

      Delete
    13. She is not liberal.

      Delete
    14. Bari Weiss chides CBS reporters over ‘winning back trust’ in Christmas Eve email... while claiming ‘60 Minutes’ backlash was due to ‘slow news week’

      'Right now, the majority of Americans say they do not trust the press. It isn't because they're crazy,' Weiss began the message, which was leaked online by Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker.

      'To win back their trust, we have to work hard,' she continued. 'Sometimes that means doing more legwork. Sometimes it means training our attention on topics that have been overlooked or misconstrued.

      'And sometimes, it means holding a piece about an important subject to make sure it is comprehensive and fair.'

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15412541/Bari-Weiss-60-minutes-trust-CBS-News-Christmas-eve.html

      Delete
    15. David Ellison?
      Oh yeah. I remember him. He's one of the coastal elites Republicans pretended they had a problem with, so that they could rollback civil rights given to minorities.

      Delete
    16. No one who has paid a modicum of attention to a Right-winger would ever believe they can work hard.
      Even David in Cal thinks that Weiss is a Left-winger.

      Delete
    17. go take a flying fuck, Dickhead. Lord King Chickenshits do not blackmail and extort independent media and force them to install a Chickenshit approved chief editor of the news. This shit isn't normal, Dickhead, you fucking fascist freak.

      Stop Defending Bari Weiss

      It is impossible to take her actions at face value given the context in which she is operating.

      By Jonathan Chait

      Delete
  13. More misinformation from Bob today:

    ASPD is not bred in the bone and that is not what Mary Trump was indicating; instead Mary is saying that these conditions can be cyclical and generational due to environmental circumstances such as having an abusive father like Trump did.

    Brabender was in reality known for being a gentle giant, he was talking about hitting balls, not people.

    Bob is bad at research, a poor thinker, and weaponizes misinformation to push his right wing agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brabender was talking about hitting people, but it was simply a joking remark.

      Delete
    2. It wasn't a joking remark. When Brabender said it, it was in the context of a baseball argument. Here is one excerpt (of two) with that phrase about hitting:

      "They said if you faced 100 hitters, you had a lot more chances to strike somebody out than if you faced only 27 or 28. And as he talked, Brabender got hot, and Brabender getting hot is like Old Faithful erupting. So I tried to cool him off. “Gene, you’ve got to learn that when you argue with somebody it’s not a personal thing,” I said. “I may disagree with you, but I still like you. I just think you’re wrong. And that’s no reason to get angry.” “I’m angry because you won’t accept facts,” he said. “Well, I don’t think it’s a fact,” I said. “I think what I say is a fact and that you won’t accept it. But I’m not angry at you because of it.” “You know something?” Brabender said. “You’re lucky. Where I come from we just talk for a little while. After that we start to hit.” I felt lucky indeed. The whole argument seemed to irritate Marty Pattin. “Who wants to listen to all that stuff?” he said. “Why can’t we just sit here and watch the ballgame?” [August 9th]

      Jim, Bouton. Ball Four (RosettaBooks Sports Classics) . RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition. "

      Delete
    3. Here is the other occurrence of the phrase in the book. Brabender doesn't say it:

      "The characters for the sitcom were loosely drawn from people in Ball Four. We had a tightfisted general manager and a pain-in-the-ass coach. We also had a big strong guy named Rhino who couldn’t wear contact lenses “because if he blinked he’d break them.” Rhino was from a small town in Wisconsin where, “we only talk for awhile, then we start to hit.” To make the show as realistic as possible I suggested we get the guy who inspired the character, Gene Brabender. After a few calls we located Bender in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, where he was fishing. I felt sorry for the fish. So Bender flew into New York and it was good to see him again. I assured him it was a small speaking part and all he had to do was look big. He did a good job, too, but surprisingly, he didn’t look right for the part. It’s funny, but on stage in front of the cameras, Bender looked smaller and somehow vulnerable, not as fearsome as I remembered him in the Seattle Pilot clubhouse. The part went instead to former Oakland Raider football player Ben Davidson, who turned out to be the best character in the show. [Ball Five: Ten years later]

      Jim, Bouton. Ball Four (RosettaBooks Sports Classics) . RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.

      Again, no one hits anyone. These are jokes about Brabender's size. His way of ending an argument, I guess. But a catchphrase Brabender used often enough to have it associated with him.

      Somerby keeps using it to suggest that people do hit and that is clearly wrong. The point is that there was no hitting, even when neither side in an argument was willing to yield their point. Somerby just grabs it because it has the word "hit" in it. Rather than showing that people hit when they disagree, it shows that it is possible for people to disagree strongly and yet not hit each other.

      Delete
    4. Even worse (for Somerby's defenders), it is a line written by Jim Bouton, someone known for embellishment, so it is likely that Brabender never said those words, and if he did he was not talking about fist-fighting.

      At this point, Somerby's misappropriation is infamous.

      Delete
    5. "He keeps using it to suggest that people do hit and that is clearly wrong."

      No.

      Somerby DOESN'T use the quote to suggest people literally hit each other. In the same way that Bouton doesn't literally "feel sorry for the fish" Brabender is after (or do you take that remark literally, too?)

      Do you really think Somerby is under the impression that brawls break out on cable TV on a nightly basis?

      The 'hitting' remark is a humorous way to point out how political discussions today quickly devolve into name calling/insults, etc. You don't get the joke.

      "At this point, Somerby's misappropriation is infamous."

      Inside your head, but nowhere else.

      Delete
    6. 4:22 you are simply wrong here.

      It is fine to point out how in some arenas political discussions can devolve into lower levels of discourse. It is a trivial point, and there is nothing new or insightful about it, but whatever.

      It is not fine to misappropriate that notion from a reference that is unrelated.

      In reality, Brabender, if the quote is even accurate, is talking about baseball, and worse Brabender in real life was not known for being a hothead, he was known for being a gentle giant, someone who cried when he accidentally hit a batter with a pitch.

      Many people have pointed out the pattern of Somerby misappropriating from literature and songs, you apparently just have your head in the sand about it.

      Delete
    7. He ends today's post by calling humanity warlike throughout human history. Yes, he is saying literally. What do you think war is?

      There is nothing humorous about the way Somerby maligns humanity. There is no joke intended.

      Somerby has been maligning Brabender for years. If you haven't read his abuse of this quote previously, you are suggesting a mistaken interpretation to support and exonerate Somerby that he doesn't deserve. Those of us who have read Ball Four dislike the way he portrays Brabender as someone he was not. Somerby does this with other authors too.

      This "what's the matter, can't you take a joke" response when called out on something wrong or offensive is typical of people who are not willing to admit that they have said something wrong.

      A joke that is not clearly identifiable as a joke is not a joke but a subterfuge to avoid criticism. Many of us here agree with @4:08 and not your defense of Somerby, who has no restraint when it comes to borrowing from others to make a point he is unwilling to state more directly.

      The idea that Somerby is making a joke by repeating a quote that actually proves the opposite of what he has been arguing is specious, silly, and not true. Somerby just made a mistake and you won't admit it. Somerby will keep on making that same mistake over and over, because he doesn't read his comments.

      You put words in Somerby's mouth. He has never explicitly stated what you said about political discussions devolving quickly into name-calling. It isn't the point of his argument today. He is arguing that we Blues are hypocrites because we don't show empathy to a president who may be ill. Then he goes on to suggest that we people are not very good at anything, including showing empathy, because we are warlike and have been throughout our history. I don't see any joke in any of that.

      The indirect manner in which Somerby communicates leaves ambiguity that allows people like you to project onto him whatever you want to believe he is saying, whatever you think yourself. It is a cowardly way of writing. His motives for doing this are murky but have nothing to do with stopping name-calling, when labeling someone as mentally ill is itself a form of name-calling. Yet Somerby does it freely.

      Somerby's misappropriation is infamous. I document it here as often as he does it, which is nearly every day. He has no respect for other people's words, the context in which they appeared, what they mean to the authors, how they have been used previously, or ultimately, what they mean. He uses them for his own purposes, without making clear what those are. You bit on his hook. I feel sorry for you, because you are wiggling around like the one in the quote.

      Delete
    8. But the thing is the quote you yourself provide shows how badly you misconstrue this.

      Brabender and Bouton start out on the subject of baseball but their talk then turns to critiquing each others' style of argument:

      “Gene, you’ve got to learn that when you argue with somebody it’s not a personal thing,” I said. “I may disagree with you, but I still like you. I just think you’re wrong. And that’s no reason to get angry.”

      “I’m angry because you won’t accept facts,” he said.

      “Well, I don’t think it’s a fact,” I said. “I think what I say is a fact and that you won’t accept it. But I’m not angry at you because of it.”

      “You know something?” Brabender said. “You’re lucky. Where I come from we just talk for a little while. After that we start to hit.”

      Why does Brabender say Bouton is lucky? That remark only makes sense if 'hit' means physically hit, not taking batting practice (again, they're joking).

      Somerby has this exactly right. And you're exactly wrong.

      Delete
    9. Quaker in a BasementDecember 24, 2025 at 5:04 PM

      "The indirect manner in which Somerby communicates leaves ambiguity that allows people like you to project onto him whatever you want to believe he is saying, whatever you think yourself."

      The irony here overwhelms.

      Delete
    10. "Perhaps it was the heat. Or maybe just the stage of the season. Or the phase of the moon. No matter the cause, we got into an insane argument in the bullpen.

      Jim, Bouton. Ball Four (RosettaBooks Sports Classics) . RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.

      This quote implies that the heat of the argument with Brabender was unusual.

      There are two of us discussing this with you, @4:58. I did not ever say that they were talking about hitting baseballs. That's the other guy. But I have been saying that Somerby is inappropriately using this quote to suggest that physical hitting was implied. Brabender did not hit people. I do think Somerby uses this quote to talk about people who do hit, about discussions that devolve into violence. That's why I object to it. The context clearly shows that even this extreme argument did not result in hitting but more discussion, as Brabender complains that facts do not end the argument.

      This is the opposite conclusion to what Somerby suggests. Somerby wants us to believe that arguing leads to hitting. Brabender shows that arguing leads to a peaceful end to an argument in which neither person yielded. Brabender's remark is saving face via posturing, not a threat to hit anyone.

      Somerby doesn't understand his mistake because he doesn't care about the context of the situation from which he pulled that often-abused quote. In every situation where Somerby has quoted it, he has referred to physical hitting that did not occur in the book and was not intended in the book.

      Delete
    11. Yes, Quaker, the irony is that this is an argument in which no one yields, just like the one in the book, but note that no one here is threatening to hit anyone else, which DOES NOT support Somerby's argument that we are a warlike people who devolve into hitting when we have arguments.

      There is a field called conflict resolution. It does not consider arguing to be a bad thing. Avoidance of conflict is an obstacle to resolving conflict because people do not express their differences and if you don't talk about it, you may wind up fighting instead. Argument is not inherently bad. The use of language to resolve disputes is a major human achievement that has resulted in less violence throughout time, not more (as Somerby seems to suggest, but it is unclear because he doesn't state his opinions directly at all).

      Delete
    12. "In every situation where Somerby has quoted it, he has referred to physical hitting'

      I feel pretty safe in saying that in NO situation where Somerby has quoted it, has he referred to physical hitting.

      Delete
    13. OK, on Jan 22, 2022, Somerby introduces Brabender, quotes about "we start to hit" and then says Brabender will be considered the world's greatest anthropologist in the future, for noting that when people argue that is followed up by hitting. He goes on to illustrate that by quoting from Kevin Drum, who says that Fox viewers should be considered victims while liberals tend to Otherize them. He explains that we libs argue with right wingers, then start to "hit" by which he means "lash out" at them. Then Somerby goes on to complain about the criminalization of everything because Maddow called for prosecuting the fake electors who forged documents. Drum called for prosecution of people who said false things on Fox, suggesting that viewers there were victims, then Somerby quoted commenters who disagreed. He summed up by calling those commenters people who wanted to "hit" in the Brabender sense by calling right wingers names. Here is Somerby's conclusion:

      "According to Brabender, what had occurred? In the words of the world's greatest student of human nature, Drum's readers "started to hit."

      Just like that, Kevin Drum's readers began seeing Others! Of an evening, they may watch the Maddow Show, a popular program which has long been built around "the criminalization of everything."

      Drum' s readers began to see Others! Tomorrow, we'll tell you more, much more, about the hard-wired, brain-eating syndrome which has driven our war-inclined species since we first crawled on dry land."

      Brabender referred to physical hitting. Somerby extended that to name-calling, criticizing, and the criminalization of everything, Otherizing right wingers and otherwise "lashing out." No, Somerby did not refer to physical hitting but to its equivalent on the internet, where people attack using words. Then Somerby blamed the human race for being so warlike. That makes it clear that Somerby equates the online lashing out to physical violence in the real world, throughout time and space. But he blames Brabender for being the anthropologist who makes these claims about humanity, hitting when opposed as evidenced by war. Why else would he call us a war-inclined species if physical hitting were not intended when Brabender said "hit?"

      Obviously, on the internet no physical interaction is possible. That doesn't mean Somerby isn't referring to physical hitting when he discussed Brabender and humanity's warlike history.

      Do I need to show more examples? This one seems pretty clear and is consistent with what Somerby said again today.

      Delete
    14. Here, on April 24, 2023, Somerby directly equates physical hitting with Brabender's quote about hitting:

      "When falsely accused, the astounded Budd was unable to speak. Instead, he lashed out at his accuser, killing him instantly. Or at least, so we're told.

      The story is reminiscent of the greatest statement of anthropology of which major experts are aware. We refer to the statement attributed to Gene Brabender, the hard-throwing right-hander, in Jim Bouton's iconic 1970 book, Ball Four.

      (For assessments of the book, see below.)

      Gene Brabender was no one's sophisticate. In Bouton's telling, the right-hander spoke at a moment of high frustration during a discussion concerning a nuanced matter:

      "Where I come from, we just talk for a little while," the frustrated Brabender angrily said. "After that, we start to hit."

      After that, we start to hit! So it has been, within our failing nation, over the past several decades as partisanship and polarization have given way to parochialism and the politics of "tribalism"—to a type of political Babel."

      The story is Melville's Billy Budd, in which an accused man (who cannot speak and defend himself, instead strikes an officer, killing him. That tends to show the utility of words in place of violence rather than the use of words AS violence, which Somerby argues happens in politics.

      There is no question that Somerby is directly equating Budd's hitting with Brabender's quote about hitting. He clearly is comparing physical and verbal violence by raising the Budd quote, then the Brabender quote, then the behavior he wishes to criticize in political situations.

      I think you owe me an apology @5:26.

      Delete
    15. The original dispute we have is whether Brabender's quote refers to actual hitting (fighting) or batting-practice type baseball hitting.

      At 5:56, I don't find much to disagree with, basically that Somerby is using 'hitting' to refer to name-calling etc.

      At 6:06 you say that Somerby equates Budd's hitting with the Brabender quote, which seems to support what I've been saying all along, that the Brabender quote refers to actual hitting.

      So you seem to be arguing more with yourself than me. Good night.

      Delete
    16. Or maybe Somerby is unclear.

      Delete


  14. "He's a moral pygmy, one analyst said!"

    You and your "analysts" sound awfully racist, Bob.

    But then, you're all Democrats, the slaveholders' party faithful. No surprise there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the statue in downtown Biloxi of Confederate General Beauregard J. Trumptard?

      Delete
    2. The parties flipped decades ago, the values of the slaveholders are now represented by the Republican party.

      Even elementary school kids know this in America, I guess foreign trolls are just out of touch.

      Delete
    3. Are you hating me, American Democrat, because I'm an African Muslim?

      And why are you ashamed of your party serving the slaveholders? T's okay, Democrat.

      Delete
    4. I do not hate you, I am just pointing out that you are ignorant, and thusly say moronic and inaccurate things.

      Delete

    5. You not know the Democrat party is the party of slaveholders, Democrat? And you call self American? And you call me, Muslim African, names, Democrat? You not know Democrat party the party of slaveholders and you call others ignorant? You retard Democrat.

      Delete
    6. This was already explained to you, the Democrats of the 1860s became the Republicans of the 20th and 21st centuries. Even American elementary school kids know this.

      You are just doubling down on your ignorance because you are embarrassed about it.

      Delete
    7. European troll farm workers know too little about American history.

      Delete

    8. What kids? 20-25? You play words, Democrat? You not know Democrat party is slaveholders, Democrat? You call African Muslims ignorant, Democrat?

      I not like it. I not like you, Democrat.

      Delete
    9. Pretending to be African by using English poorly is akin to mocking African Americans by speaking in an Amos & Andy dialect. You are being a jerk. Go away.

      Delete

    10. How dare you to insult my Somalian friend, you follower of the Democrat slaveholders' party? Your party always has been the slaveholders' party, idiot-Democrat, and it always will be. Live with it.

      Delete
    11. Conservative Republicans are racists.
      Conservative Democrats were racists.
      This isn't Republicans vs. Democrats.
      This is Conservatives vs. humanity.

      Delete

    12. And Democrat party is the party of slaveholders.

      Delete
    13. Good one. You only had to go back 165 years to score one against the Democrats.

      Delete
    14. Meh. The democrat party has always been, still is, and most likely will always be the party of slaveholders.

      Whether slaveholders own cotton plantations in the US or factories in Asia and Mexico.

      Delete
    15. Stupid people gonna stupid. Like about how many people u expect will be uninformed enough to think that this is a thing u dumbass.

      Delete
  15. Since Charlie Kirk's assassination, inflation is up, unemployment is up, Israel is routinely breaking the "ceasefire", and our economy is in the toilet along with Trump's poll numbers.

    Deep state, y'all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kirk was not assassinated, an autopsy revealed he died of a fentanyl overdose moments before his neck gave out.

      Delete
    2. Is to funny. Prove me wrong.

      Delete
  16. Stop me if you've heard this one before: Epstein, Trump and a 20 year old girl get on a plane....


    "Part of the latest document drop was the release of an email from a federal prosecutor telling an unnamed recipient that Trump “traveled on Epstein’s private jet many more times than previously has been reported (or that we were aware)” in the 1990s."

    "The email disclosed information about a flight where Trump and Epstein were the only listed passengers, but they were accompanied by a “then-20-year-old” person whose name has been redacted by the DOJ."

    https://thehill.com/homenews/5662267-doj-releases-epstein-files/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would that be concerning if it was true?

      Delete
    2. Did Hector say it was concerning? I think he is trying to show that Epstein and Trump DID hang out together and visit places on Epstein's jet accompanied by young women, contrary to any pretense he and the guy were just acquaintances.

      Delete
    3. So it's not concerning? It's just to show that Epstein and Trump did hang out together and visit places on Epstein's jet accompanied by a young woman? Why would that need to be shown if it's not concerning?

      Delete
    4. (it doesn't show that they DID though. You realize that right?)

      Delete
    5. I posted this because it raises the distinct possibility that some combination of Epstein/Trump were having their way with a 20-year old at a time ("the 90s") when Trump was between the ages of 44-54.

      And I think this item should be viewed in light of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction on sex trafficking charges, (i.e. was this girl being trafficked?), as well as Maxwell's subsequent unusual and unexplained lenient treatment by the Bureau of Prisons.

      It's up to you how concerning you find it.

      Delete
    6. Trump has many accusations against him for being a sexual predator, some specifically related to Epstein, some related to Epstein and underage girls.

      There is so much evidence against Trump, that there is no longer any way to rationalize supporting a reprehensible sexual predator like him. Trump does still have some defenders, these are wounded lost souls, apparently deserving of our pity.

      Delete

    7. Are you being trafficked, Soros-bots? You sound like you're being trafficked.

      Delete
    8. Good point. No text or email or photo stands alone but in a collection that points toward a likely picture of what was happening between Trump, Epstein, Maxwell, the victims, the co-conspirators (who were investigated but not charged) and the men who used Epstein's services or participated in his science club. Together, these individual pieces of potential evidence can create a picture of what really happened at various points in time.

      The entire situation must be concerning because it involves the rape of young girls by much older men in an organized crime of sex trafficking in which men paid money for access to the victims. That is both illegal and immoral and should have stopped much sooner than it did. Trump's role in any of it is concerning because he is president and entrusted with obtaining justice for the victims, whether he was besties with Epstein (and others) or not.

      Delete
    9. Trump is not running for reelection after this, but others are going to have to run. Their behavior concerning Epstein will be part of what voters consider in the midterms.

      Delete
    10. If you lived in America you'd know that most big cities suffer from heavy traffic, particularly in the mornings when people go to work, and at night when people return home.

      Trump's best friend Epstein was involved in sex trafficking young girls, many wealthy people took advantage of Epstein's services, from Trump himself (who may have also been providing girls to Epstein) to Prince Andrew to Steve Bannon to Dershowtiz to Gates to Pinker on and on.

      Delete
    11. 4:17 How typical that a troll doesn't care about sex trafficking to the point of making a joke about it for political purposes.

      Anyone who has traveled recently will have seen signs at the airport about how to turn in sex traffickers observed on flights. In the ladie's room, the signs are addressed to possible victims and talk about how to get help if being forced to travel against your will. This is not a joke but big business.

      I don't know about trolls, but we don't joke about crimes around the dinner table in my family. Maybe this troll has been watching too many Sopranos episodes or maybe he thinks all people are like himself with a big chest hole where their cruddy soul used to be. This troll needs to reflect about what it means to be sex trafficked, from the victim's perspective, not his own.

      Delete

    12. Traffic's a bitch. And parking's a pain in the ass.

      Delete
    13. You are concerned that unconfirmed testimonial evidence claiming Trump may have been on a flight with Epstein and a 20 year old girl raises the "distinct possibility", they were "having their way with" her, because of Maxwell's sex trafficking charges?

      Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were using the quote to try to express a rational idea. Thank you for the reminder of your intellectual seriousness.

      Delete
    14. "You are concerned that unconfirmed testimonial evidence claiming Trump may have been on a flight with Epstein and a 20 year old girl raises the "distinct possibility", they were "having their way with" her, because of Maxwell's sex trafficking charges?"

      This is the definition of a moral panic. Critical reasoning is totally thrown to the wayside and replaced by sexually based insinuations.

      They may have flown on a plane together with a 20-year-old, therefore they must have been raping her.

      Hector has been driven completely insane by participating in a mass moral panic.

      Delete
    15. Look at the context. This text is in a trove of documents centered on Epstein's sex trafficking activities. That creates a greater "distinct possibility" than would exist if you found the text by itself. The sexual insinuations come from the other documents and larger context, not anyone's imagination.

      If the plane had been American Airlines and Epstein had never had sex with an underage girl, you might have a point. That is not the case and Hector is drawing justifiable conclusions. This is not a mass moral panic but a real-life situation that should have been prosecuted much sooner were it not for the corruption of the FL District Attorney and now Trump's current AG. Justice delayed is justice denied. Hector is not a paid troll trying to defend Trump, as you are.

      Delete
    16. A few clarification are in order:

      The 'unconfirmed testimonial evidence' is an email from a federal prosecutor.

      The 'flight' they were on, rather than being a jumbo 747, as it seems you imagine, was Epstein's private jet where Trump, Epstein and the 20-year old were the only passengers.

      'Maxwell's sex trafficking charges' were performed on behalf of Epstein, of whom Trump was a good bud ('wingman' might be a better term).

      And I notice neither comment address Ghislaine's still unexplained and highly unusual transfer to a cushier prison by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

      Delete
    17. 4:59 Thank you for confirming that you, like Hector, are swept up in a moral panic where emotion and suspicion completely overthrow rationality. It's not a moral failing on your part. It is interesting to see it at work here in real time. I appreciate you sharing it with me.

      Hector, thank you for further explaining your reasons for being concerned that this evidence could mean Trump and Epstein were having sex with the 20-year-old.

      Delete
    18. No one should be surprised. These are the guys who still feel Donald Trump was using his televised press conferences to communicate instructions about committing national security crimes to Russian hackers.

      Think about that.

      Trump drove them all completely insane years and years ago. The Epstein thing is just a new outlet for them to express how disconnected from rationality they are.

      Delete
    19. "Hector, thank you for further explaining your reasons for being concerned that this evidence could mean Trump and Epstein were having sex with the 20-year-old."

      I would change 'could' to 'it's likely that'.

      Delete
    20. Hector, don't further embarrass yourself! Dang. Okay. Thank you for explaining why you're concerned that new evidence shows it's likely that Trump and Epstein were having sex with a 20-year-old on a plane in the '90s.

      Delete
    21. I just wish you understood how detrimental that claim is for Democrats. Oh well.

      Delete
    22. I appreciate your concern with my street cred.

      Out of curiosity, what do you suppose would account for the presence of a serial sex predator, Trump, and a 20-year old girl on a private plane known as the Lolita Express?

      Delete
    23. You see, other people look at statements like that as expressions of a rational idea. They naturally apply reasoning to statements like that. So. Never mind.

      Delete
    24. "Out of curiosity, what do you suppose would account for the presence of a serial sex predator, Trump, and a 20-year old girl on a private plane known as the Lolita Express?"

      Rational people who have not been swept up into a cult-like, mass moral/political panic instantly and immediately look for evidence and proof. People not gripped in a panic that has yielded them irrational don't even ask "what would account for" until they know it's real. The last thing they would do is engage in a fantasy about it that includes certitude about deviant sexual behavior. You're lost. You're you've gone around the bend. You're not thinking or communicating with any rationality whatsoever.

      Delete
    25. Hector doesn't even understand what the Lolita Express is. The plane under discussion is not the Lolita Express.

      Delete
    26. I truly feel honored for you to have shared your feelings about the likely sex that happened on the plane.

      Delete
    27. "The plane under discussion is not the Lolita Express."

      Don't be shy. Give us your reasons why you think the flight I'm referencing was not on the Lolita Express.

      Delete
    28. "the likely sex that happened on the plane."

      Not sure what 'likely sex' is, so please don't put that phrase in my mouth.

      And I never said anything happened on the plane itself; that's your own sloppiness.

      Delete
    29. The Lolita Express was not a jet.

      Delete
    30. This is a bit like a striptease. Okay, what was it?

      Delete
    31. Sorry about that Hector. Thank you for sharing your belief that this new information about a flight likely included sex with the people on it before or after it took off and landed. Or maybe you are saying that because the flight may have taken place and included a 20-year-old, it makes it likely that Trump or Epstein had sex with some 20-year-old somewhere at some time through some kind of arrangement with each other. I appreciate your interesting concerns.

      Delete
    32. The Lolita Express was an airliner.

      Delete
    33. The Lolita Express was a 747 jumbo jet as I guess you seem to think it was some kind of private jet. It just shows you don't know what you're talking about at all. You were swept up in a a political and moral panic and had your basic reasoning skills robbed.

      Delete
    34. Engaging in politics as theater has not turned out super well for you.

      Delete
    35. "I guess you seem to think it was some kind of private jet."

      That's exactly what I seem to think. In fact that's exactly what I think.

      And so does AI Overview:

      "The "Lolita Express" was the derogatory nickname for a private Boeing 727-100 jet owned by the convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein."

      Apparently Google's AI was swept up in the same moral panic I was. Nice chatting with you. Say hi to Ghislaine for me.








      The "Lolita Express" was the derogatory nickname for a private Boeing 727-100 jet owned by the convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein."

      Delete
    36. I seen what you are saying. But the plane in question was not the Lolita Express. It was one of his private jets. Not the commercial airliner that he privately owned. But most certainly yes, the mass moral panic shows up in AI constantly. In this case, I think it's a completely fair distinction for you to make. For your sake, I wish that making this distinction as you have would relieve you of everything else you have said about the concerning nature of the alleged flight. But so it goes.

      Delete
    37. For your sake and for the sake of the Democratic party.

      Delete
    38. Politics as theater has served you very poorly.

      Delete
    39. Trump and Epstein weren't eating our pet cats and dogs. That was an exaggeration, said to make a greater point. The point being that Republican voters are perfectly fine with child rape, as long as they get the bigotry they crave like children crave sugar.

      Delete
    40. "Trump drove them all completely insane years and years ago. The Epstein thing is just a new outlet for them to express how disconnected from rationality they are." Every fucking time demented Don opens his yap we all see how disconnected from reality he is. Sad.

      Delete
  17. From AI based on the question "Is empathy part of morality?"

    "Yes, empathy is widely considered a crucial moral value and force, acting as a foundation for moral behavior by helping us understand others' needs, but it's not the only component of morality; it can also be biased and sometimes conflict with pure justice, leading to debates about its limits and the need for reasoned moral frameworks alongside it.

    How Empathy Supports Morality:

    Builds Moral Communities: Empathy helps us see others' perspectives, fostering understanding and a sense of shared humanity, essential for creating moral communities.

    Drives Prosocial Behavior: Feeling another's pain motivates us to act to alleviate it, making it a powerful driver for compassionate actions.

    Acts as a Moral Compass: It provides an emotional "push" to do the right thing and can stop us from rationalizing harmful acts, notes this NIH article and this DDP Network article.

    Challenges & Debates

    Bias (Empathy Gap): Empathy is often stronger for those we know or are similar to, potentially leading to unfair treatment of strangers, a bias that many argue needs correction for true morality.

    Conflicts with Justice: In some situations, strong empathy can lead to unfair decisions (e.g., giving a good task to someone you empathize with instead of using a fair random method).

    Not Always Necessary: Some argue that morality relies more on reasoned principles (like "don't litter") than deep emotional empathy, which isn't always present or required for basic moral adherence.

    Conclusion

    Empathy is a vital component and motivator for morality, but not its sole definition. A truly moral life often involves using reason to temper empathy's biases and apply principles of fairness and justice universally, creating a more robust moral system.

    ----------------------------

    By setting empathy and morality in opposition, Somerby creates a false dichotomy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's describing a real world situation where moral language is used in ways that exclude empathy. He's not creating a false dichotomy, he's describing one that has played out in our national discourse.

      Delete
    2. morality and empathy are not distinct things but empathy is part of morality. Somerby sets them in opposition.

      Delete
    3. Yes. That's true. Good job pointing that out!

      Delete
  18. In honor of Christmas, here is Rude Pundit's collection of nativity scenes:

    https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

    See the 12/23 entry. He says they are all un-ironic. You be the judge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Americans are fleeing Christianity in droves, with good reason.

      Delete
    2. The problem is that people have been fleeing all group activities since the internet was developed. That includes fraternal groups like Elks & Rotary, garden clubs, women's clubs, scouting, bridge clubs, bowling leagues, etc. People who are dismayed by the decline in membership in these other groups do not typical know that it has been happening across the board. There are some good books about the loneliness resulting from isolation experienced by people who spend too much time online and not enough doing real life activities.

      You would need to compare the rate of decline for churches against the rates for other non-religious activities to see how much is fleeing religion and how much is fleeing all things because of change in lifestyles with computers and phones.

      Delete
    3. There is a significant difference between not going to a Rotary meeting and no longer believing in Jesus.

      Rotary meetings may be an inconvenience in today's world; through the democratization of media people are being exposed to information that indicates there is nothing supernatural in the universe, and that while religious freedom is a good and fundamental aspect of society, religious indoctrination is quite harmful.

      Delete
    4. Only a tiny percentage of people are willing to call themselves atheists.

      Delete
    5. I am a proud atheist. Normal people don't give a shit. We celebrate Christmas except skip the boring church nonsense.

      Delete

    6. I George Soros am your God, proud atheist. Kneel before me, unworthy white male hooman.

      Delete
    7. What the fuck is up your weirdo asses about the globalist Jews wrecking everything? Get a fucking life and learn who is really fucking you up yo ass.

      Delete
  19. Somerby thinks he is being sly, but I find him offensive when he says at the end of today's post:

    "Anthropologically, it helps explain the history of the species:

    War without end, amen."

    You may recognize that this phrase is actually "World without end, amen."

    From AI: The prayer that ends with "world without end" is the Glory Be (also known as the Gloria Patri), a doxology praising the Holy Trinity, concluding with "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen". This phrase signifies eternity, translating from Latin as "unto the ages of ages," meaning God's glory is everlasting, not that the physical world won't end.

    Mocking religious prayer at Christmas strikes me as in poor taste. Somerby also continues to mock God's creation, humanity. War arises due to conflicts over resources, not because we are a war-loving people. In our current situation, it is Trump who is seeking war, not the nation as a whole and definitely not Blue America. Generalizing from Hegseth to the rest of humanity is surely a mistake given the man's obvious deviancy.

    Perhaps Somerby thinks this is funny. I dislike his cynicism most days, but especially during this time when people grow closer and extend warm feelings to others. This comes across as Somerby's "bah humbug" but worse, because his is also mocking people's religious beliefs.

    I was always taught: "If you can't say something nice about Christmas, say nothing at all." Somerby's disadvantaged upbringing perhaps left him bitter while others are celebrating. Given the many ways of displaying Christmas spirit, I find myself lacking in empathy for Somerby's assholery today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quaker in a BasementDecember 24, 2025 at 4:57 PM

      "If you can't say something nice about Christmas, say nothing at all."

      The same rule does not apply to Our Gracious Host, I see.

      Delete
    2. Nope, and why should it?

      Delete
    3. Because I make the rules.

      Delete
    4. I can't imagine growing up in an environment of being "always taught" what and what not to say about Christmas. So sad. What on Earth were you saying about Christmas that your elders needed to admonish you thus?

      Delete
    5. My parents told me Christmas comes but once a year, because they were cheap bastards who only wanted to give me presents on Christmas and my birthday.

      Delete
    6. Amen to that! Put we say frugal to our kids, not cheap bastards.

      Delete
    7. Our president says that little girls don’t need 35 dolls or 25 pencils.

      Delete
  20. Merry Christmas to us all, and God bless us everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Reports Claim Over $76B in California Fraudulent Spending

    Given our enormous taxes compared with mediocre state government services, this is plausible.

    https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/liveblogs/live-blog/2490875/reports-claim-over-76b-in-california-fraudulent-spending.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuck you fascist David

      Delete
    2. Did you listen to the Newsmax "report"? They didn't cite any actual fraud, just the "potential" for fraud and a bunch of programs they just don't like.

      Delete
    3. On behalf of DiC, I would like to thank Quaker for the correction. As usual.

      Delete
    4. David in Cal,
      In your opinion, why does it cost so much more to buy a house where they live under San Francisco values?
      Asking, because you pretend you were once an actuary, and I need a good laugh.

      Delete

    5. That's because the Pentagon (aka the Department of War) dumped billions (if not trillions in total) in Silicon Valley, idiot-Democrat. Creating a shitload of super-well-paying jobs there. Ever heard of the
      military-industrial complex?

      Delete
    6. Ever heard of the laws of supply and demand, or voting with your feet?

      Delete
    7. Putin has Trump reversing that, 8:08.
      You're going to have something else to cry about. Perhaps I can interest you in the crackdown on child-trafficking.

      Delete
    8. Why are houses so expensive in SF?
      The military.
      Hahahahaha.

      Delete
    9. Thomas Sowell thinks SF bay area houses are so expensive because so much land was taken out of possible residency.

      Delete
    10. Quaker - I don't know how much of CA's spending is fraud. I do know that HALF of it could be eliminated with no reduction in quality of life. I know this because Texas and Florida have per capita taxes that are less than half of what I'm paying. Yet, their education, highways, etc. are no worse than ours.

      Delete
    11. Fuck you fascist David.

      Delete
    12. What does the “etc” cover, DiC? Are there other factors for which California might be better than Texas?

      Delete
  22. 45 & 47 have the lowest presidential approval ratings at this point in their terms in modern history. Kudos, well deserved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here are the latest Trump Approval polls.
      Republicans: 74%
      People who don't look at children sexually: 0%.

      Delete
  23. "The Justice Department on Wednesday said it had uncovered more than a million documents potentially related to the Jeffrey Epstein case and will need more time to fulfill the release of files ordered by Congress."

    So, after Trump campaigned to release the Epstein files, and pressure has been mounting for a year to release the files, they have just now discovered over a million Epstein-related documents.

    Some will see this as stonewalling or covering up. But I don't think sheer incompetence can be overlooked as an explanation.

    Under Trump and Pam Blondi, this DOJ can't do even the most basic tasks.

    ReplyDelete