WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2026
The New York Times won't go there: As far as we know, there was no historical Homer. There wasn't even a Homer Price, he of the doughnut machine.
(That Homer lived in a different time: "It [was] America laughing at itself with a broad and genial humanity....")
There was a Homer Parrish in The Best Years of Our Lives (Best Picture, 1946), "the highest-grossing film in the United States since the release of Gone with the Wind." In one of that film's most memorable scenes, his next-door sweetheart since childhood convinces him that of course she will, and of course she does, still love him despite the wounds he has brought back from the war.
That portrait of classic (female) fidelity might perhaps recall the weaving and unweaving of Penelope in the poem which wasn't written by Homer, who apparently didn't exist:
Homer
Homer (possibly born c. 8th century BC) was an ancient Greek poet who is traditionally credited as the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, two epic poems that are foundational works of ancient Greek literature. Homer was highly revered in ancient Greek society and is considered one of the most influential authors in history. Today, the question of Homer's identity and existence—dubbed the "Homeric Question"—continues to be debated, and scholars generally regard the two poems as the works of separate authors.
The Iliad centers on a quarrel between King Agamemnon and the warrior Achilles during the last year of the Trojan War...
However it may have been composed, the Iliad does indeed "center on a quarrel between King Agamemnon and the warrior Achilles" during the last year of that fictional war. It's the rage of Achilles which triggers the action, leading on to the fall of Troy.
Leading on to the fall of Troy.! We refresh you about that famous event, produced by a vast group rage:
Bernard Knox, Introduction to Robert Fagles translation
[...]
The death of Hector seals the fate of Troy; it will fall to the Achaeans, to become the pattern for all time of the death of a city.
The images of that night assault—the blazing palaces, the blood running in the streets, old Priam butchered at the altar, Cassandra raped in the temple, Hector's baby son thrown from the battlements, his wife Andromache dragged off to slavery—all this, foreshadowed in the Iliad, will be stamped indelibly on the consciousness of the Greeks throughout their history...to reinforce the stern lesson of Homer's presentation of the war: that no civilization, no matter how rich. no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force.
Hector's sister unspeakably abused in the temple, with an old man butchered at the altar? Hector and Andromache's baby boy hurled to his death from the walls of the city?
So it went in the group rage which followed the slaying of the endlessly valiant Hector. In his continuing rage, Achilles drags Hector's body behind his chariot, through the dust, as Hector's parents watch from the walls. Or, as Mary Lefkowitz put it in the Washington Post:
It was [Homer] who first portrayed [women] in their important role as survivors and the continuers of the culture that the men sought in their violence to destroy.
Regarding the baby boy in question, here's one small part of the scene, high atop the city's walls, as Hector prepares to go off to battle earlier in the poem. Andromache is begging him not to go:
In the same breath, shining Hector reached down
for his son, but the boy recoiled,
cringing against his nurse's full breast,
screaming out at the sight of his own father,
terrified by the flashing bronze, the horsehair crest,
the great ridge of the helmet nodding, bristling terror
so it struck his eyes.
And his loving father laughed,
his mother laughed as well, and glorious Hector,
quickly lifting the helmet from his head,
set it down on the ground, fiery in the sunlight,
and raising his son he kissed him, tossed him in his arms,
lifting a prayer to Zeus and the other deathless gods.
[...]
So Hector prayed
and placed his son in the arms of his loving wife.
Andromache pressed the child to her scented breast,
smiling through her tears. Her husband noticed,
and filled with pity now, Hector stroked her gently
trying to reassure her, repeating her name...
We thought that memorable scene should be mentioned today.
The baby's loving parents laughed together at their baby boy's innocence. Loving parents and loving spouses were found inside the walls of Troy. Down by the shore it was different.
For the record, Hector returns from battle that day, succumbs to the rage of Achilles as the long poem nears its end. We emerge from these reveries with a curious type of question:
Is it possible? Is it possible that Homer, who largely didn't exist, tells the story of our nation's current circumstance with greater clarity than can be derived from the well-intentioned news reports found in the New York Times?
Just within the past week, we've seen the tribal rage of a group of Senate Republicans directed at the 85-year-old Anthony Fauci. As his colleagues prayed to the gods that Dr. Fauci might be imprisoned, the astonishing Senator Moreno was even inspired to say this:
Here I am sitting in front of you, six years later, saying "Who the fuck do you think you were for doing that?"
Yes, he actually said it! And there was the grisly Senator Hawley, engaged in such undisguised clowning as this:
HAWLEY (7/29/26): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, nothing says honesty like taking the Fifth, huh, Doc? Let's try something:
What day of the week is it today?
[...]
What color tie are you wearing?
[...]
What color is the carpet in front of you?
More on that tomorrow.
Group rage was on display in the Senate last week, a type of rage which is likely to lead to societal disaster. On Sunday, Secretary Kennedy Jr. ranted and raged on CNN, repeating his most famous misstatements while inspiring the children of the Fox News Channel to fall on the floor, spilling with praise about his masterful outing.
Can a society expect to survive the existence of so much tribal rage? We'd say the prospects are shaky at best. That said, consider this:
On the front page of today's New York Times, the relentless tribal fury in question is captured in a news report about the latest acts of madness. Online, the report appears beneath this dual headline:
Inside the Oval Office Showdown Between Trump and Jeanine Pirro
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told President Trump that his interior secretary, Doug Burgum, had misled him with a self-serving cover story for his own mistakes.
The latest madness is detailed there, in the bulk of its complexity, though you'd hardly know it from those tapioca-adjacent headlines. Our question:
Is it possible that the human madness with which we're confronted is actually easier to see in the verses of the Iliad? Is it easier to see our current situation all the way back in Book One, where the rage of Achilles comes spilling out in a way we haven't yet reviewed?
(At issue: A fight between Achilles and Agamemnon. With apologies, they're filled with rage about who will get his choice of the various stolen girls.)
The madness of Agamemnon and Achilles is on clear display in Homer's text. The madness of our sitting president is once again on display this morning, though only at Mediaite:
Trump Fantasizes About Himself as Decorated General Alongside Patton and MacArthur In Bonkers AI Image
President Donald Trump promoted himself to a decorated military general in his latest use of AI through Truth Social.
While making various posts about the military on Tuesday, Trump dropped an AI-generated image showing him in a military uniform and sporting various medals. Standing next to him were Gens. George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. Patton was a general known for his service leading forces in World War II, while MacArthur also commanded forces in World War II and the Korean War.
The difference between those two men and the president is that the president has never served in the military.
And so on from there, Zachary Leeman reporting.
The madness involved in the rage of Achilles is undisguised in the Iliad, from Book One right on.
In our world, this latest Truth Social post by the sitting madman won't be reported in the New York Times. Unlike in the realm of the non-existent Homer, such orgs have agreed that the basic facts of modern life must never be reported and must never be discussed.
According to Homer, Hector stroked Andromache gently, gently repeating her name.
Tomorrow: The rage of the Senate machine
All those clownishly angry senators (most of them representing the region that has been this country's ball-and-chain since its birth) must have voted themselves into office.
ReplyDeleteSpot on.
Delete"According to Homer, Hector stroked Andromache gently, gently repeating her name."
ReplyDeleteThis is touching, but what does it have to do with anything?
Somerby discusses whether Homer existed but did Andromache or Hector exist? Did Achilles exist? These are characters in a work of fiction.
Knox emphasizes Achilles' rage, as does Somerby, but it seems likely that men who stayed on a beach for 10 years would be fighting out of duty, habit, because they were slaves to those ruling them, had no means of returning home, not because they were hot-headed and blood thirsty, as Homer portrays them. Hector fought out of duty and gained nothing by his death. Who else felt any rage among those who sacked Troy? The brutality portrayed by Homer is not even justified by the rage of Achilles, which seems more like a literary device than any emotion felt by anyone on that beach. It all just seems pointless.
So, why on earth does Somerby return to this poem over and over, exalting Knox and the warriors, blaming the women and describing their pain in excruciating detail, as he does the loss of Andromache today. Yes, Homer endows these characters with real emotions, Hector loved his son, but to what end?
Somerby romanticizes and glamorizes this poem and wars like this one, suggesting that we Democrats are Troy and we will fall because we are not paying attention to the rage on the beach, or don't have the right heroes, or whatever his actual point is (he doesn't state anything clearly). We are insufficiently heroic on the left, Somerby implies. But this is all fake, fiction, propaganda, nothing is historical or real, and we Democrats are nothing like anyone in the Iliad. So what does Somerby see in this old poem, and why does he continue to inflict it on his readers? Only Somerby's therapist knows for sure...
Professor Knox is incorrect about what caused most cities to rise and fall. It was not warfare but commerce.
ReplyDeleteKnox, enamored of warfare as he seems to be, ignores that many ancient cities were abandoned, fell to natural disaster or climate change, or disappeared due to changing civilizations, trade patterns, migrations or disinterest of the people previously sustaining them. A visit to an archaeological museum shows that.
AI supports this view: "The major cause of the death or long-term decline of cities over time is the loss of their economic raison d'ĂȘtre—the fundamental trade, resource, or industrial function that sustained their population. While war, natural disasters, and plagues have caused dramatic sudden collapses, slow economic shifts and resource exhaustion are responsible for the permanent death or severe shrinkage of most historical and modern cities."
Mark my words. Just as Bob has glommed on to this poem like a temporary life raft for his blog, commenters will now line up to wax eloquent about the various and sundry fictional characters they think bear some relevancy to our lives.
ReplyDeleteYou are all reverse Chance The Gardeners, spouting eternal wisdom that lesser minds confuse for ignorant, poorly thought-out nonsense.
DeleteTrump, who has never been religious before in his life, is now clinging to life in part because he fears he is headed for that Lake of Fire.
DeleteGods, Jesus, Hell, are all myths, but it is comforting to know that as life fades away from Trump he will be terrified.
Jesus may have existed.
DeleteDid he walk on water?
DeleteRage is not an excuse for anything. Trump supposedly flies into rages daily, screaming at staff and anyone nearby, throwing objects. If Trump has attacked Iran out of rage, that doesn't mean he will win since he has no gods looking over his shoulder, no justification based on theft of his Slovenian rent-a-wife, and no expertise in warfare. Now he is running out of weapons. Homer would write an entirely different narrative about Trump.
ReplyDelete"According to Homer, Hector stroked Andromache gently, gently repeating her name."
ReplyDeleteThis is disgusting. This kind of reveling in pain makes the entire poem disgusting. Why? Because grief is not a suitable form of entertainment for gloating men.
Homer is twisting the knife when he portrays Hector's affection for his wife and son. For the manosphere, Achilles not only shares their rage, but he is killing Chad and Stacy.
DeleteFagle's translation uses the odd phrase "scented breast".
DeleteThe word "scented" did not arrive in English until the late 1500s.
Fagle is known for adding poetic flair to his translation to make it more palatable to English readers, but apparently the original phrase was "fragrant bosom" which is also odd.
Within the context of the scene, it drives home what Hector is giving up - a well groomed woman, a sort of trivializing of women.
The Homer epics have value not in offering up insight into human nature, but into the culture and norms of the societies that perpetuate the stories.
Trump's rages and bizarre social media posts are reported by the New York Times, and numerous other places too. For example, they have discussed Trump's rage at Jeanine Pirro.
ReplyDeleteOn May 11, 2026, the NY Times ran a feature on how it covers Trump's bizarre memes and social media posts:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/insider/100000010896107/how-the-times-covers-trumps-social-media.html
"I’m Patrick Healy, an assistant managing editor at The New York Times. President Trump posts a lot on Truth Social. He announces policy. Attacks opponents. Fires people, makes threats. It’s his main method of communication. He posts an average of 18 times a day. But it’s also a strategy. Presidents always want to drive the news. So how does The Times cover not just a president, but his social media feed? It comes down to newsworthiness. We turn to our reporters with expertise on the economy, law, war and other areas and ask, Is President Trump making news that could affect lives or policy or the world? If they think so, they start reporting to get the full story. But we don’t publish everything a president says. President Trump, Biden, Obama used Twitter for talking points and press releases. Those often weren’t newsworthy on their own. And sometimes what’s news is how President Trump talks, like when he dropped an F-bomb on Truth Social on Easter Sunday. Our stories quoted his actual language, even though we usually don’t publish swear words. But when the president posts a message that threatens a sovereign nation and uses vulgar language to do it, that’s newsworthy. Our role is to assess information and use our own judgment to decide what’s newsworthy. And in the case of a president who does things we’ve never seen before, it’s important to look carefully at what he’s saying on Truth Social."
How did Somerby miss this?
Either Somerby is really dumb or someone is paying him.
Delete"Is President Trump making news that could affect lives or policy or the world?"
DeleteIn reality, it comes down to how well what he says or does will help them sell the news, both now and in the future. This is just a smokescreen of words masquerading as principle.
2:25,
Deleteis that you, Karl Marx?
Tiedrich comments on the Republican response to Max Miller's violence against women (and his daughter):
ReplyDelete"“it’s a very sad thing. I know Max. he’s a good person. I mean, I always thought he was a very good person. I’m going to let the families figure that out … it’s a very sad thing, especially when you know someone so well, to be going through that. but it’s— accusations.”
adjudicated rapist says what?
look, I did warn you that everybody in this story fucking sucks.
should we really be surprised that Preznit Fuckwit — a guy with 28 of his own credible abuse allegations against him — takes Miller’s side? it’s so sad ‘for HIM to be going through that.’
not the wife who ahem allegedly had a gun held to her head, not the daughter with the broken collar bone, but Max Miller — he’s the real victim here.
Donny’s going to do what he always does: pass the buck. he’s going to let the family work it out amongst themselves. how nice of him. what a kind and generous humanitarian!
with Dear Leader having shown them the True Way Forward, Republicans had their marching orders: pass the buck and say it’s a family matter."
A man who hurts women belongs in jail, not Congress. Perhaps it is hard for men who find The Iliad engrossing to understand that violence against women is not OK. Rage is no excuse.
In jail they become more violent.
DeleteTwo of the most compelling and credible accusations against Trump come from two girls he sexually assaulted when they were 13 years old.
DeleteTrump is now the least popular president in history, but how anyone can still support him (about 30% of adult Americans) is a strong indication our society is a mess.
But I disagree with Somerby about what kind of mess our society is in. Somerby is part of the problem and he offers no plausible solution to our nation's woes.
DeleteThose 30% have always been a GOP fixture. They would vote for anyone or anything that has a (R) next to the name.
DeleteAgree 2:37, Somerby's prescription is awful.
Delete"Group rage was on display in the Senate last week, a type of rage which is likely to lead to societal disaster. "
ReplyDeleteI think it was performative rage. Posturing and lying. Not genuine at all.
How can Bernie Moreno direct all that rage at Fauci and none at his former son-in-law, Max Miller, who did such horrible things to his daughter? Where is appropriate rage when it is called for? A man who would either feel no rage or suppress that rage for political reasons, manufacturing fake rage for political gain, is more of a sociopath than a genuine human being. We should avoid electing people like Miller to Congress, but also people like his ex-father-in-law, who won't stick up for his own daughter.
Agree, taking the words of people that have a history of lying and misinformation and bad advice at face value, is nutty.
DeleteRawstory has this headline:
ReplyDelete"Max Miller's bizarre claim on Trump's 'nasty criminal misconduct' stuns Newsmax host"
Miller claimed that Trump had been accused of sexual abuse and criminal offenses but denied them, didn't quite, and won his races. He said that inspired him to do the same.
How is any of that "bizarre"? It is all true. And it is not unreasonable for Miller to think that if the party tolerated Trump's wrong-doing, it would do the same for him. The reporters points out that he (Miller) is not Trump. But really, why should that have made a difference? If it is wrong for Miller to mistreat his ex-wife, why was it not wrong for Trump, when he pulled Ivana by the hair over to the bed and raped her, during their marriage? Why are any of Trump's crimes OK to voters? Miller has a valid point, in my opinion.
The better thing to do would be to pull out of the race and allow another Republican to hold the seat for the party, but Miller is not a self-sacrificing guy (any more than Trump is). He wants what he wants, might makes right, and he is not going to step aside simply because his flaws are now obvious to the electorate. He sees no reason why he shouldn't be treated like Trump as been.
Somerby offers no explanation of why Miller should be punished when Trump has not been. When he deals with that question, I will take seriously that he cares about anything other than helping Trump win (at whatever he wants).
Child rape and wife beating is obviously not disqualifying for republican voters
DeleteKen Klippenstein:
ReplyDeleteImagine if Donald Trump went all-in endorsing a candidate for the Senate, campaigned for them and helped raise eleven times as much money as their opponent — who then lost.
There would be wall-to-wall media coverage declaring the end of Trump’s influence and of the Republican Party as we know it. “Trump’s Bitter Defeat,” The New York Times would say; “The End of an Era ,” The Washington Post would echo.
This actually just happened in Michigan — with one detail glaringly absent.
Basically the entire Democratic Party leadership supported Haley Stevens, who outspent El-Sayed eleven to one amid a relentless campaign of warnings about how bad news bears he would be for state, party, country — but lost. But the media’s response? ‘He didn’t win by that much,’ ‘Now comes the hard part, the general election,’ and so on.
Bullshit.
This is a massive defeat for the Democratic Party old guard and an affirmation that the new crop of outsider, renegade candidates are the people’s choice.
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer — basically the entire Democratic establishment endorsed Haley Stevens, a textbook party stooge. For her to still lose is a repudiation and humiliation of not just Stevens but the entire political death star behind her.
The party elders threw everything at El-Sayed but their dentures. The attack ads were ugly even by the standards of politics.
“Abdul El-Sayed HAS A PATTERN OF DISRESPECTING WOMEN,” reads one AIPAC-funded mailer (they dumped $30 million in defeating El-Sayed). The evidence for this? He said that Gov. Whitmer was “bought and sold” and that Michelle Obama was “ineffectual.”
Sitting Democratic congresswoman Hillary Scholten told CNN that El-Sayed had “uniquely sexist bent to the things that he has said about women.” The evidence? His calling Stevens “a suit with a large AIPAC bank account,” and, again, his calling Whitmer “bought and sold.” The latter remark, Scholten claimed, was “essentially comparing her to property with no ideas of her own” (lol).
But the real story here is bigger than El-Sayed. It’s that voters were not swayed by an avalanche of big money and big people. Instead, they hoisting a bigger finger than we’ve seen since Barack Obama’s own primary upset in 2008. Any media outlet that doesn’t acknowledge that is on the side of the big money and big people.
For example, beltway outlet Politico, which declared in a headline this morning: “Progressives didn’t get the big election night they wanted.” Politico pointed to the “razor-thin margin” (1 percent) of El-Sayed’s victory.
El-Sayed’s insufficiently “big” win is in fact the highest-level political upset since Barack Obama. The irony here is that Obama actually won the 2008 presidential primary by less than El-Sayed — just half a percent of the popular vote.
Imagine the headline, “Obama supporters didn’t get the big election night they wanted.” Would anyone be able to read that without laughing?
As with Obama, young people in Michigan voted for El-Sayed at rates that Washington types consider implausible or even impossible. Young people don’t vote, the conventional wisdom goes.
DeleteAs I’ve written about before, from Zohran Mamdani to El-Sayed, the impossible keeps happening — because it’s only impossible if you follow the Washington obsessed and dominated news media. They rely on the very army of strategists, consultants, and pollsters for their spin, the same people who keep calling these races wrong and don’t seem to know a single American outside of the Acela Corridor.
What is “possible” or “practical” is a scam propagated by a political class that profits from your despair and resignation.
Something deeper is going on here in the United States. From coast to coast, and now in the heartland, people are defying the gatekeepers and voting for change. The Democratic Party is a ghost ship, its captain hiding in some isolated old folk’s home in Washington. They keep pushing “empty suits” (no sexism intended) of various colors but all with the same diehard commitment to the status quo.
Americans always deserved better. Now they know it.
Don't worry. Your DNC bloggers/propagandists will be telling you what to think about this shortly. Then you can respond.
DeleteThe Ministry of Information is determining what you will think about it as we speak.
Delete"
DeleteSomething deeper is going on here in the United States. From coast to coast, and now in the heartland, people are defying the gatekeepers and voting for change."
The same thing happened in 2008. The same kinds of people were saying the same things. And then the boomerang turned around.
August 2026: A federal judge reluctantly granted a Justice Department request to dismiss remaining seditious conspiracy indictments and vacate convictions for eight Oath Keepers members, including founder Stewart Rhodes. This followed sweeping executive clemency actions and orders from the Trump administration to drop pending January 6 cases.
ReplyDelete****
When the fucking media refers to the fucking trump DOJ, the fucking media means trumps fucking lawyer.
Make insurrection great again!
DeleteAll they did was throw a childish temper tantrum, just because black people's votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
DeleteWhat next? Taking rain to court, because it's wet?