SATURDAY: The president spoke for over an hour!

SATURDAY, JULY 25, 2026

A politics of meaning: Did the president really speak for over an hour?

Yes, he actually did! Beyond that, also this:   

We've told you, quite a few times, that (severe) mental illness is always a human tragedy. The same is true of serious cognitive decline, which joins mental illness is robbing its victim of his or her human capacities.    

We've also said that, as far as we know, serious mental illnesses are actual illnesses, often with physiological bases over which the afflicted individual has no control. We've suggested that, as a political matter, pity for an afflicted public figure might tend to move more votes, as opposed to the hostility and loathing to which we humans are all inclined.   

(Hostility and loathing harden tribal positions.)

That said, the person to whom we refer spoke for over an hour! King Lear wandered on the moors. Last night, the sitting president went to the Waldorf Astoria. 

Here's what the AP saw:   

Trump returns to correspondents’ dinner for a rambling, insult-filled speech 3 months after shooting   

President Donald Trump returned to the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Friday night, delivering a rambling, hour-long speech that praised some journalists, took potshots at others, made jokes about public figures’ weight and intellect, and quipped about a third presidential term.  

[...]  

Trump’s sometimes off-color speech, which lasted just over an hour, was full of vague potshots directed at individuals he doesn’t like—from Jane Fonda to Bruce Springsteen to “Barack Hussein Obama.” The audience, reacting at first with some friendly laughs, slowly quieted to scattered titters as the insults piled up.   

And so on from there.

"Insults" was by far the more accurate term, as opposed to the misleading "potshots." The Washington Post was perhaps a bit more direct:  

Trump’s insult-laden speech to press dinner draws mostly stunned silence   

President Donald Trump attacked a slew of journalists and some of his favorite political foils at a slimmed-down redo of the White House correspondents’ dinner on Friday, comparing one female reporter to a transgender social media star, mocking politicians’ physical appearances, and bringing his audience to mostly stunned silence for more than an hour before pulling out a red Trump 2028 cap and declaring he was running for another term.   

[...]  

He said that he had once mixed up CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins, whom he said “never smiles,” with a transgender social media personality, Dylan Mulvaney, after he called the 34-year-old cable news star a “young, attractive woman.”   

He said he planned to host twice-weekly fights at the White House.

“We will have sloppy Chris Christie, one of the sloppiest human beings, fighting,” Trump said to silence. “I could mention the governor of Chicago, but I’m going to mention instead Jerry Nadler. Oh my God! They’re fighting for a big piece of cheesecake, big fat piece of cheesecake.”  

For our money, the instant reports don't capture the pitiful squalor of what we saw as we watched the event on TV. 

Regarding the latest of the president's never-ending comments about Collins, Mediaite reports his remarks in sad full detail. To see that report, click here.

We expect to have more about last evening's event when transcripts become available. We haven't seen a report which captures how awful and sad the president's hour was.

For today, we'll link you to what Democracy Now once said, a long time ago, about the suggestion that we Americans need to develop a "politics of meaning."  

It was May 23, 1996. If you were willing to squint a bit, the shape of our current failing political culture had already come into view.

Democracy Now is an organ of what gets called "the left." Here's what Democracy Now said at that long-ago, distant time:   

Politics of Meaning  

There’s no doubt that we’re in a period of great cynicism about what government does or can do to improve our lives. Psychotherapist Michael Lerner believes this cynicism and the alienation that Americans feel are a direct result of the ethic of selfishness that pervades American politics, from the White House on down. 

Lerner is the author of a new book called The Politics of Meaning: Restoring Hope and Possibility in an Age of Cynicism. Michael Lerner gained national exposure when Hillary Rodham Clinton used his phrase “Politics of Meaning” in a speech; the media then started calling Lerner “Hillary’s Guru”. 

Nonetheless, Lerner’s ideas are the foundation for a growing social movement in the U.S. that blends humanist politics with spirituality, and aims to provide a progressive answer to the power of religious right. Last month, over a thousand participants attended a first national conference in Washington D.C.

We’ll now hear an excerpt of a speech by Michael Lerner in which he explains his concept of a politics of meaning and its importance in this era of conservative domination.   

The audio is no longer there. Our comment would be this:   

Democracy Now was looking for a "progressive answer" to the culture then current on "the right." There's no reason why the people at that site shouldn't have felt that way, but in our view, we really need a new politics in which people from all major points of view can accept certain basic precepts.  

At present, we're all stuck within a failed state. We desperately need a new politics. 

Some current behaviors will have to go. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

Next week: We Blues


FRIDAY: Tarlov cited the new Fox poll!

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2026

One-way interruption: Our guess turned out to be right.

Yesterday afternoon, we told you this about that new SHOCK POLL:

"We'll guess that viewers of The Five will not be told, later today, about that SHOCKING new poll, the one with the Dems plus-11."

That was a reference to the new Emerson College pollthe poll which had the Democrats up by eleven points in the "generic ballot" race for control of the House.

Early yesterday afternoon, we guessed that it wouldn't be mentioned on The Five. We were correct about that:

On Wednesday, the tools had hyped a (possible outlier) poll which placed the Democratic lead at a mere three points. On Thursday, the tools didn't mention the (possible outlier) poll which tilted in the other direction.

Yesterday, we also mentioned the new Fox News poll, which had placed the Democratic Party's lead at 7 points. On Wednesday, the tools didn't mention their own new poll! 

Yesterday, though, the new Fox poll was mentioned right away! At 5:01 p.m., Jesse Watters said this:

WATTERS (7/23/26): New Fox poll, showing that a majority of Democrats actually have a favorable opinion of the DSA, and socialism in general. 

Democrat kingmaker James Clyburn also fuming over the Commies...

And so on from there. 

(Three hours later, on Jesse Watters Primetime. Watters said "Commie" or "Commies" at least a dozen times. At 8 o'clock sharp, he opened with a pseudo-discussion of the "Commie Catfight"or as chyron had it, the GIRL FIGHT!which has broken out, or so he said, between AOC and Kamala Harris. If you think we must be making this up, you can just click here.)  

Sad! Back to yesterday's edition of The Five:

At 5:01, with the day still young, Watters selected the part of the new Fox poll which showed that 59% of Democratic respondents had voiced a favorable view of the DSA (AKA "the Commies").

On The Five, that's equivalent to a finding of terminal ptomaine poisoning. Watters mentioned no other findings from the gloomy Fox poll.

Later, because Jessica Tarlov was in the Democratic Party chair instead of Harold Ford, the new Fox poll was mentioned a! Given the opportunity to try to speak, Tarlov offered this:   

TARLOV: There was a lot more to that Fox poll, and it was absolutely brutal for Republicans...

Democrats up 53 to 46.  In counties where the presidential vote was close—so, decided within 10 points—Democrats up 59-41. Up on inflation and prices and the economy. Young people, old people, women, independents—the only group that Donald Trump was up with was white voters, and that was just GOP plus one.

With Tarlov, not Ford, in the Democratic Party chair, the Fox survey did get mentioned. Now for the rest of the story:   

We'd offer Tarlov's attempt to speak this day as an example of the pitiful "interruption culture" which pervades this "cable news" program. By our reckoning, the interruptions went like this:   

As the program started, the four (4) pro-MAGA co-hosts were discussing the segment's basic topicPresident Trump's critique of the way "the crazy Commies" are "trying to burn down the [Democratic] Party." (We're quoting the language of Watters, who was moderating the segment.)  

The four went on until 5:09. Everyone got his or her say. There were no interruptions.    

Then, at 5:09, Watters finally threw to Tarlov. By our calculation, this is the way it went:

Tarlov spoke for almost two minutes before the first set of interruptions occurred. Inevitably, they came from Greg Gutfeld. You can see the muttplay here.   

After the interruptions and the laughter subsided, Tarlov attempted to start againand now she mentioned the Fox News poll! This time, it was Brian Kilmeade who stepped in to contradict and interrupt, with Gutfeld soon jumping in with more of his useless thoughts. 

"This is so nerdy," Gutfeld finally said as Tarlov tried to resume. "Yeah, you're in the weeds a little bit, Jessica," the idiot Watters now said, and with that astute assessment the segment was brought to an end.

Full disclosure!  Tarlov is frequently mugged in more aggressive ways on this baldly ridiculous programby more extensive interruption and group over-talking. But as we cite our accurate guess about that Dems plus-11 poll, we thought we'd invite you to see one of the ways this massively successful imitation of life operates when Tarlov is on the program.   

Tarlov doesn't interrupt or challenge the pro-MAGA four as they take their turns to speak. The interruptions run all one way on this sad, embarrassing showon this pitiful messaging program.   

Dems were up by 7, Tarlov actually managed to say. In the midst of the cable cage match, the Fox News pollDems plus-7actually did get cited!


FAULTY: Why did David Brooks say what he said?

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2026

What Yevtushenko said: Last Friday night, on the PBS NewsHour, David Brooks seemed to say that he wasn't concerned.   

One night before, the sitting president had made a self-ballyhooed national address. How had the speech been received? 

By the time the NewsHour aired, it was already clear that the Fox News Channel was ghosting the president's speechwas pretending it hadn't happened. As we noted in Monday's report, Brooks himself had this to say about the satrap's assertions:   

BENNETT (7/17/26): President Trump once again putting false claims about the 2020 election at the center of the national political debate is where we start, as we turn tonight to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. 

[...]

BENNETT: So, David, what did you hear in that speech last night? What do you think President Trump is trying to accomplish here?   

BROOKS: Oh, subtle. I couldn't figure it out.

(Chuckling)

He was— He's got to get more original in his confabulation. I mean, he's just stuck on this 2020 thing. There's never been any evidence. There's no evidence.   

Even in his role as moderator, Bennett spoke of the president's "false claims." In his reply, Brooks referred to the presidents ongoing "confabulation." 

"There's never been any evidence," he rather imprecisely said. Following which, he said this:   

BROOKS (continuing directly): I think the good news is, he doesn't have any policies to actually ruin our election system, as we heard from the secretaries of state. So we're going to have fair elections in this country.

"We're going to have fair elections," he said. The analysts screamed and tore at their hair. They had no idea why he'd said that.   

Are we going to have "fair elections" this year? The young analysts couldn't imagine why a person as smart as David Brooks would play Pollyanna that way. 

Bennett may have been puzzled too. Eventually, he returned to Brooks with a new question, generating this exchange:  

BENNETT: David, we spoke on this program last night with Ty Cobb, who was the special counsel during the first Trump administration, and he offered an extraordinary warning. He said that he believes that President Trump is laying the predicate for an emergency declaration around the elections.

Do you see the guardrails holding if President Trump tries to use the apparatus of the federal government to intervene more directly in how elections are administered?

BROOKS: I think so. A lot of people have thought that this is a predicate for some future action.

I think, if you look at the things he's tried to do, we're helped by the fact that these are mostly state-run things, so he does not have control. And what isn't state run is usually congressionally run. And so he has tried. The thing he's done successfully is the gerrymandering in Texas. He has rigged elections and Democrats have helped in California.

So that part he was successful at in degrading our elections. But pretty much everything else he's done, through executive order and other things, courts have overruled him. And so I do not believe he will have the power to actually affect our elections.   

A lot of people believe that Trump may try to interfere with the elections, Brooks now saidbut the courts would overrule him. And so, in effect, there's nothing to worry about.  

That struck us as an extremely strange assessment. When Bennett turned to Capehart, he somewhat meekly voiced an obvious point of concern:  

BENNETT (continuing directly): How do you see it, Jonathan?

CAPEHART:  Although I am a little concerned about what happens on Election Day.

Congressman Jim Himes was on with my colleague Lawrence O'Donnell last night, and he warned that, yes, what the president is doing is laying the predicate for stealing the election. And he said, for instance, "What happens if they seize the ballot boxes from particular jurisdictions? What happens to the chain of custody?" 

That is when democracy will be at its most tenuous. And, sure, you can race to court and try to get them back, but the action's already done. 

And so I hope you're right that we are going to have a free and fair election this November. But I have a healthy imagination, and I hope that folks who care about free and fair elections also have a healthy imagination and are prepared for any and every scenario that could happen.  

Capehart said he was "a little" concerned about the president's possible actions. Then, he referred to what Jim Himes had said on Thursday's edition of The Last Word, a program which aired right after the president's speech.

Full disclosure! We too had seen Rep. Himes when he appeared on O'Donnell's program. 

In our view, Himes is one of the sharpest members of the House. He'd been followed on The Last Word by Senator Elissa Slotkin, who we regard as one of the sharpest members of the Senate. 

Speaking with O'Donnell, Himes and Slotkin had each voiced grave concerns about what the president might do come November:

Might the sitting president "deploy federal officers to seven states to seize ballot boxes" at midnight on election night? On Election Day itself, might he "send uniformed military or federal law enforcement to take care of alleged security threats around our polls," or to seize voting machines?

"These are things the president refuses to rule out, as does his cabinet," the very alert Senator Slotkin told O'Donnell that night. "The president has made it clear that this is not a joke to him."  

To see the full interview with Himes, you can just click here. For the interview with Slotkin, you can start by clicking here

Slotkin and Himes voiced deep concerns about what November might bring. Slotkin described meetings she's held with Michigan officials to gameplan the way to react to various scenarios on Election Day. And no, the courts couldn't stop a determined president from doing such things, not until Election Day was over and massive damage had been done.

Slotkin and Himes voiced specific deep concerns. One night later, Brooks was happy to report that we're going to have fair elections. We thought his presentation was extremely strange.   

David Brooks is a good, decent person. He's done a lot of excellent work. He isn't just a good, decent person, he's also perfectly sharp. 

That said, it seems to us that he may tend to hold himself back in the face of concerns like this. As our nation develops its new politicsthe politics which will save us from the downward spiral we're currently inwe'll learn to be sympathetic to possible shortcoming of this and other types. 

We think of Yevtushenko's portrait of who we (all) are as people:

Who we knew as faulty, the earth's creatures...

So Yevtushenko said


THURSDAY: Concerning the picking and choosing of polls!

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2026

Who's going to win in November? Today, we have the reading of pollsfor example, of the new SHOCK POLL described below. 

The report comes from David Gilmour of Mediaite:   

SHOCK POLL: Democrats Open Up Stunning 11-Point Lead on Republicans on Generic Congressional Ballot

Democrats have opened an 11-point lead over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot in a new national poll, underscoring the party’s growing advantage just over 100 days before voters decide control of Congress.

The latest survey from Emerson College Polling found 53% of likely voters backing the generic Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 42% for the Republican candidate. The result represents a 3-point increase for Democrats and a 2-point increase for Republicans since Emerson’s June survey, widening the overall gap.   

The findings place Democrats well ahead of several other national polling averages, even as most continue to show the party holding a measurable advantage heading into the November midterms.

That's the way Gilmour starts. In the course of his report, he makes it clear that this encouraging result for Dems stands at present as a bit of an outlier. On the other hand, he also says this:

[continuing directly]
The Emerson findings are broadly consistent with other recent polling. A Fox News survey released Wednesday found Democrats holding a 7-point advantage on the generic congressional ballot, with 53% of voters saying they would back the Democratic candidate in their House district, compared with 46% for the Republican.  

Fox reported the margin was the party’s largest in its polling since 1996 and fell just outside the survey’s margin of error. 

Interesting! As of yesterday, a brand-new Fox News survey had Democrats up by 7! In fact, you can examine Fox Digital's report about that poll simply by clicking here

(Sub-headline: Latest survey shows Trump approval stuck near record low.)

We mention that poll for a reason:   

Late yesterday, on The Five, the tools spent a good chunk of their first two segments gushing about the latest poll from the Washington Post, which only had Democrats up by 3.  (For the first example, click here.)

No one mentioned the channel's own poll, the one which has Democrats up by 7. Also, no one mentioned the fact that the 3-point edge in the Post poll is the edge among registered voters. Among voters who say they're "virtually certain to vote"68% of the survey's respondentsthe advantage for Democrats rises to eight points.   

(For the Post's report on its poll, you can just click this.)

No one know how November's elections are going to turn out. That's especially true in the current circumstance, in which it's entirely possible that the sitting president will do something designed to interfere with turnout.   

(Or not.)   

No one knows how the worm will turn, but everyone knows how to pick and choose the data which favor their tribe's tribal preference. We'll guess that viewers of The Five will not be told, later today, about that SHOCKING new poll, the one with the Dems plus-11.  

Everyone knows that we can't continue this way as a nation. When we've established a "politics of meaning," will this picking-and-choosing of information continue to prevail?  

While we're at it, what the heck is a "politics of meaning?" Michael Lerner wrote the book on the topic. Tomorrow, we'll take a look there.


FAULTY: What did the president actually say?

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2026

But also, the doomsday scenarios: Truly, it's been a "week that was."  

It has now been seven days since the sitting president, President Trump, delivered his televised national address—the televised address which wasn't televised by several networks and was then disappeared by Fox.  

Pretenders like Dana Perino have agreed to pretend that it never occurred! The speech has slid down the memory hole—but in the interest of preserving our flailing nation's history, what did the president say?   

For starters, he started by saying what you see below. Warning! As you can see on the videotape from the invaluable Rev, some of the things he said don't quite seem to parse:    

Trump Address to the Nation 7/16/26

Good evening. Before we begin, I'm proud to report that our country is safer, stronger, and far wealthier than it has ever been before. We are doing great. 

Less than two years ago, we inherited an economic and social disaster. After the worst inflation in 48 years, the wide-open borders with millions and millions of people pouring in from all over the world, including criminals of all types, and 11,888 murderers, many of whom killed more than one person. 

We had transgender for everybody, men in women's sports, crime ravaging our cities, and the whole world was laughing at us as a nation, but not any more. 

Two years ago, our country was dead. Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world. America is respected like we have never been respected before. 

Before he began, he said all that. He then added quite a few similar claims. 

That very evening, on The Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell focused on the peculiar claim that, just two years before, we'd had "transgender for everybody." At this site, we googled the number 11,888, as we'd done quite a few times in the past, including the times when the president used to say that the bogus number in question was 13,099. 

(As everyone surely knows by now, we're now living in a post-fact, fact-free environment. There's no real point in trying to correct the president's endless misstatements, but for one of many factchecks of those twinned numbers, you can click here for a visit to FactCheck.org.)   

Before he began, he made those statements, many of which were clownishly bogus, a few of which can't exactly be said to be wrong. Then he began to say the things he'd promoted as being of prime importance. 

By now, the speech has disappeared—has been dispatched to the region where disregarded piffle dwells. But just for the sake of maintaining a record, these were his five main claims:

Tonight I'm announcing the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure...

The documents cover five major areas of concern

First, they show that, over a period of years, starting during the 2020 election cycle, the People's Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million US voter files.   

[...]

Compounding the travesty, the second set of documents we are releasing reveals that members of the deep state, very, very famous group of people, many cases, in our intelligence agency, worked to actively suppress and downplay information about the extent of China's sinister election meddling, covering it up from both the President and the American people like nobody thought was possible.

[...]

The third set of documents we are releasing proves that for many years, Americans were blatantly lied to about the security of our election infrastructure, including electronic voting machines and ballot counting systems dishonest almost all. They're vulnerable, and they're easily compromised and people within our government knew that. 

[...]

The fourth set of documents reveals that, even when significant evidence of fraud has been detected, it has been buried and covered up. Among the disclosures tonight are FBI files detailing evidence of alleged fraud by a large-scale voter registration operation in Michigan.  

[...]

Finally, to reveal just how vulnerable our elections continue to be, we are releasing the results of a stunning investigation by the Department of Homeland Security. According to the DHS review, state voter rolls, and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections. Since Democrat states refuse to share their voter files, the real number is actually much higher than that.   

Those were the basic claims, and those claims were accompanied by a profusion of lesser claims. Fact-checks were attempted by MS NOW and CNN, though everyone knows that we now live in an essentially post-fact environment. 

In truth, the ultimate fact-check was offered by the Fox News Channel, where Dana Perino and all the others agreed that the best way to deal with this presentation was to pretend that it hadn't occurred. On Fox, the messengers agreed to talk about the many "Commies" instead. 

On Fox, the various friends took a dive. But so it now goes within the Babel which the president decided to hail that night, for perhaps the ten millionth time, as "the hottest country in the world."

This very morning, just one week later, a new report by Vitali and Boudreaux appears at MS NOW. 

Given his obvious worries about our elections, what might the sitting president decide to do this fall? Democrats are preparing for a type of Doomsday, the MS NOW scribes report:

Schumer convenes Democrats to prepare for election doomsday scenarios    

For two hours Wednesday, away from the cameras, in a room just steps away from the Senate chamber, a group of powerful lawmakers rehearsed for some of their darkest fears about November’s midterm elections: disinformation triggering voter-roll purges in key states before Election Day, National Guard troops deployed to polling places as voters cast their ballots and the machinery of a free election seizing up in real time.

Almost a dozen senators, seated at long tables arranged in a U-shape, with notepads and water bottles before them, were walked through three hypothetical situations set before, on and after Election Day 2026. At points, screens displayed mocked-up graphics or artificial intelligence-generated videos that could be used to sow disinformation. 

The exercises are part of a broader effort by Democrats—both inside government and out—to prepare for anything ahead of November. Republicans often decry their fears as hyperbolic. They may yet be right. 

But multiple Trump administration officials have declined to rule out [sending] ICE agents or other federal law enforcement to polling places in the fall, though doing so would be illegal. And more GOP election deniers are rising into positions essential to safeguarding democracy in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. 

And so on from there.

(For the record, we have no idea what that last sentence means. The sitting president isn't the only person whose statements may sometimes be garbled.)

Democrats are said to believe that the sitting president may be planning to undermine November's elections. We can think of no serious reason to assume that this fear is misplaced.   

That said:

What, us worry? That's what David Brooks seemed to say, last Friday night, with respect to this widespread fear.   

Brooks is a good and decent person, and he's perfectly bright. Why in the world—why on earth—would he have said what he did?

Tomorrow: Jonathan Capehart's fears


WEDNESDAY: Michael Lerner got there first!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2026

It's time for Kelly to go: What might a "politics of meaning" look like? What does the term even mean?   

Yesterday, we linked you to the speech in which first lady Hillary Clinton first employed that term. That said, the term had originated with someone elsewith someone whose view of the world the first lady admired.   

Shortly after the first lady's address, Daniel Schorr discussed the matter in the Christian Science Monitor:   

Behind the 'Politics of Meaning'  

On April 6, in Austin, Texas, Mrs. Clinton delivered what some are already calling "THE speech." It was a passionate appeal for Americans to develop a sense of community. She spoke of "cities that are filled with hopeless girls with babies and angry boys with guns." She spoke of a "crisis of meaning" and urged the remolding of society by "defining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millenium." What is needed, she said, is a new kind of politics, "the politics of meaning."

The "politics of meaning" is a concept of Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, a liberal Jewish monthly. Did Mrs. Clinton get the phrase from him? Indeed she did. At a subsequent White House reception she said to him, "Am I your mouthpiece or what?" And, "It's amazing how we seem to be on the same wavelength." In a meeting in her office, she told Mr. Lerner that she and her husband had been reading him since 1988.   

And so on from there. In 1996, Lerner published a book on this theme: The Politics of Meaning: Restoring Hope and Possibility in an Age of Cynicism. 

More on Lerner tomorrow. As for Hillary Clinton, some people felt she'd (unwisely) gotten out beyond the traditional role of an (unelected) first lady by offering such a sweeping reassessment of the American scene in just her third month in the East Wing. 

We can't necessarily say they were wrong, at least as a political matter. Sensibly or otherwise, the first lady absorbed some major body blows in the wake of her speech.

Last week, that famous old term, "the politics of meaning," began to dance in our heads. Can any serious person really believe that our nation can continue in the current way, with poisonous podcasts from the left and the rightwith every flyweight a king?   

The rise of those various new technologies has given every furious flyweight the chance to spread misinformation and fury and venom all around the town square. For an example of what we mean, check the part of this opinion piece at Mediaite which describes Megyn Kelly is mainlining venom about the Obamas' daughterstwo young women whose views and feelings the routinely poisonous Kelly seems to know nothing about.

Yes, we agreeit gets worse! That said, no nation can survive as a Babel, especially if the competing voices come from people behaving like this. 

Wo what's an intelligent nation to do? An intelligent nation will seek a way to get back out of all this mess. They'll start looking for a way "back out of all this now too much for us."

Is it time for Megyn Kelly to go? A nation can't run on angry inanity. A nation can't run on paired venom.


FAULTY: Who's the most influential of all?

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2026

Joe Rogan, one columnist says: Our nation is in a world of hurt. It's amazing to see how many people seem to be lingering in various forms of denial.

As we noted yesterday, we thought David Brooksa good, decent personwas lingering there, last Friday night, on the PBS NewsHour. Before we return to his puzzling conduct, Bret Stephens is attempting to help us see part of the mess we're all in.

Rather, Stephens outlines two parts of the existential mess we're all in. 

Midway through his new column for the New York Times, Stephens describes the pair of titans who performed a three-hour podcast last week. No names are included in the passage posted below, though one titan will be easy to name. 

For the record, Stephens is a man of the center right. This is the truth as he sees it:

Call the Veep, Agent Mulder!

[...]

The truth—that the most influential media figure in America today, with tens of millions of followers on social media, is a jocular bro with an Everyman affect who seems never to have encountered an idiotic or despicable conspiracy theory he isn’t willing to promote (moon-landing denial) or platform (Hitler revisionism). We are a nation that has moved at speed from the realm of fact colored by opinions to a kingdom of delusion infested with fear.

The truth—that the current vice president is by far the worst person ever to hold the office (move over, Aaron Burr, John C. Calhoun and Spiro T. Agnew). ...The prospect of this callow and sinister opportunist taking the place of the erratic buffoon now governing us may be the single scariest thought in world politics today.    

It's easy to see who he's talking about in that second paragraph. In Stephens' opinion, JD Vance is a "callow and sinister opportunist" who is "by far the worst person ever to hold the office" of vice president.

Opinions on that will differ. Opinion will also differ on Stephens' description of President Trump as "the erratic buffoon now governing us."  

Is President Trump an "erratic buffoon?" At present, opinions differ. In fact, they differ quite widelybut Vance is easy to spot in the passage we've posted. 

More interesting, in our view, is the first paragraph we've posted. In that paragraph, Stephens describes "the most influential media figure in America today."   

According to Stephens, who is that person? We'll give you his name:  

Joe Rogan! 

Is it possible that Stephens is right? Is it possible that Roganthe former host of The Man Showreally is "the most influential media figure" in our flailing nation today?   

At the time of the Vietnam War, it was widely believed that Walter Cronkitea deeply experienced war correspondentwas the most influential such person. 

(Before his work in World War II, he had served as Moscow bureau chief for CBS News.)

The deeply experienced Walter Cronkite was most influential then. Is it possible that Rogan"a jocular bro with an Everyman affect"holds that position today, as our flailing nation keeps starting and stopping its ongoing war with Iran?  

Is it possible? Yes, it probably is. Yes, we suppose it's possible, though it would surely be hard to say.

That said, is Stephens' unflattering description of Rogan accurate? Because we've never listened to Rogan's podcasts, we can't quite tell you that. 

We've never listened to Rogan! But on a daily basis, for years, we've watched the aggressive buffoonism performed on such corporate propaganda shows as The Five and Fox & Friends Weekend, mixed with the ugly aggression of the prehuman Gutfeld! program. 

No serious nation can expect to survive the culture created by such undisguised garbage can "cable news" showsor the garbage which flows, on an hourly basis, from our failing nation's assortment of deranged podcasters of both the left and the right.  

What happened on last week's podcast, triggering this column by Stephens? Right at the start of his column, Stephens attempts to explain:   

Call the Veep, Agent Mulder!

Somewhere around the two-hour mark in JD Vance’s nearly three-hour podcast interview last week with Joe Rogan, the pair got into a serious conversation about supernatural and extraterrestrial phenomena. By serious, I mean it in the sense that Rogan seemed to take the subject seriously while Vance cynically, or cretinously, or cravenly, or credulously or conspiratorially—or perhaps it’s all of the above—played along with him. 

[...]  

By this point, the two men had already propounded one conspiracy theory—that the Los Angeles mayoral election had been rigged (a claim previously debunked by a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor); followed by Vance’s accusation that Joe Biden’s staff got him to eat ice cream “in the most ridiculous, suggestive way imaginable” (a remarkable way of turning naked mendacity into adolescent prurience into another conspiracy theory); followed by an exchange about eating corn dogs in public (because, you know); followed by an argument about whether the Ten Commandments should be mandated in Texas public schools, in which neither man appeared to be aware that the commandments are not originally Christian.  

We've omitted three examples of Vance's pronouncements concerning demons and the like. Regarding Vance's claim about the way Joe Biden ate ice cream, we'll tell you something Stephens probably doesn't know:   

Back in the day, the brain-numbing stupidity about Joe Biden's eating of ice cream sprang full-blown from the empty head of Jesse Watters on a regular basis (along with so much more). On The Five, the other children would titter and chuckle, pretending that this inane behavior made sense.

(After that, it would often be time to over-talk Tarlov again.)

Watters co-hosts The Five each day, then hosts his own program, Jesse Watters Primetime. They're the two most-watched programs in the American "cable news" firmamentand Watters, the most-watched person in cable news, is a gender buffoon and undisguised tribal clown well past all the way down.  

Out of madness of this sort, very bad politics grows. But on Friday evening's PBS NewsHour, David Brooks seemed blissfully unaware of the mess we're all in:

What, us worry? he said.

David Brooks is a good, decent person. Also, he's very bright. Tomorrow, we'll return to an ongoing mystery:  

Why is the worldwhy on earthdid David Brooks say what he said?   

Tomorrow: Jonathan Capehart's concern


TUESDAY: Hillary Clinton gave a speech!

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2026

On balance, it didn't go well: What the heck is a "politics of meaning?" If we agree that our struggling nation needs a politics of that type, what kind of politics would we be talking about?

As anyone with eyes can see, our flailing nation badly needs a new type of politics. But what's a "politics of meaning?" 

Let's return to the first lady's speech, the one she gave in 1993.   

The first lady was Hillary Clinton. She was in her first year at that post. Perhaps unwisely, she delivered this address at the University of Texas n April 6 of that year. 

The governor of Texas was in the room, and that governor, the late Ann Richards, was actually a Democratand she was a woman to boot! Those were different times, but you could possibly squint and see the present day on the horizon. 

The first lady gave a speech in which she said that she could discern a "crisis in meaning" in our American lives. It probably wasn't wise to say thatespecially for Hillary Clinton, who had already become a favorite punching bag of certain elements on the right and within the American press.    

She was moving out beyond the role our (unelected) first ladies had traditionally taken, and that may not have been wise. That said, how acute was this crisisthe shortfall of meaning in our lives? 

The crisis was fairly acute! Fairly early in her speech, the first lady even quoted the late Lee Atwater, a lifelong, extremely aggressive Republican strategist who had died in 1991 at just 40 years of age.

On his deathbed, he had famously referred, in a bit of a conversion, to "this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society—this tumor of the soul.” 

That statement "to me will be Lee Atwater’s real lasting legacy," the first lady said, occasioning applause. By the end of the speech, she was quoting Albert Schweizer seeming to say that, while sleeping sickness is a real disease, there is also "a sleeping sickness of the soul." 

Along the way, she had described her own vision in the manner seen here:

CLINTON (4/6/93): And what we each must do is break through the old thinking that has for too long captured us politically and institutionally, so that we can begin to devise new ways of thinking about not only what it means to have economies that don’t discard people like they were excess baggage that we no longer need, but to define our institutional and personal responsibilities in ways that answer this lack of meaning.

We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.

We need a new "politics of meaning," she said. We need to fill ourselves up again, thereby defeating this crisis of meaning.

The first lady was surely well intentioned. On the other hand, as a general matter, it probably isn't politically wise to talk like thatto tell several hundred million people about the malaise in which they're trapped, whether that word is employed or not.  

On balance, fairly or otherwise, that attempt to define a "politics of meaning" didn't go especially well, but by last week, we suddenly found ourselves longing for a second bite of the apple, for a new and improved such politics.   

In truth, our flailing nation badly needs a critter like thata critter you might call a politics of meaning. We badly need a critter like that, but what would some such critter look like? What would a less destructive political culture possibly entail?

"Here comes the sun," George Harrison wrote. "It seems like years since it's been here."

Tomorrow: The late Michael Lerner


FAULTY: Challenged by Bennett, Brooks held firm!

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2026

The courts will protect us, he said: Why in the world did David Brooks say what he said last Friday?  

Brooks appeared with Jonathan Capehart for their usual Friday night spot on the PBS NewsHour. The night before, the sitting president had made a loudly ballyhooed national address.    

Thanks to the invaluable Rev, you can read the transcript and watch the videotape of the president's self-ballyhooed speech. Thanks to the invaluable Rev, you can do so by clicking here.

The president started with some familiar claims, most of which were inaccurate or misleading. (Some were hard to decipher.) After that, the sitting president stated his major thesis:   

PRESIDENT TRUMP (7/16/26): For many years, I've called for bold, swift, and decisive action to protect the integrity of America's elections. Every American deserves to know that when they cast their vote, that vote will be counted accurately in a system, and that is to make that system secure, one where cheating and interference are not just difficult but virtually impossible. 

Unfortunately, the system we have today falls catastrophically short of that standard. Tonight, I'm announcing the immediate declassification, and release of critical intelligence revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure.  

The situation is catastrophic, he saidbut how catastrophic is it? Quite catastrophic, he claimed: 

"There's no third-world country that has elections like we have," the president now said. 

By that, he meant there's no country whose election system is as bad as the American system. He described our system in this somewhat garbled presentation:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (continuing directly): This evidence shows that the election system we have dangerously exposes, and really exposes like levels never thought possible, to hacking, exploitation, and foreign interference. [sic]

Just as disturbingly, this vital information has for many years been covered up and hidden from you, the American peopleour beautiful, our great American peoplebut that all changes right now.   

As the president read from a teleprompter, he may have skipped part of his text in the first chunk of that presentation. But even where his words didn't parse, his overall claim was clear: 

According to the sitting president, we Americans are beautiful people and we're also great. But according to the sitting president, our election system leaves us exposed to the world:

Our systems are open to hacking by foreign entitiesto exploitation and "interference." Or so the president said.

As he continued, the president attempted to defend, and to further explain, that startling representation. 

The sitting president had made a startling accusation. But one night later, as he started to speak with Geoff Bennett of PBS, David Brooks made a remarkable statement of his own.

As we noted yesterday, he started off like this:

BENNETT (7/17/26): So David, what did you hear in that speech last night? What do you think President Trump is trying to accomplish here?   

BROOKS: Oh, subtle. I couldn't figure it out.

(Chuckling)

He was— He's got to get more original in his confabulation. I mean, he's just stuck on this 2020 thing. There's never been any evidence. There's no evidence.    

There's never been any evidence, he said. The president has been relentlessly pushing a confabulation over the past six years.

At one time, a statement like that, by a major journalist, would have qualified as a startling event. But in this age of endlessly weird misstatements by President Trump, Brooks' statement passed without noticeand then, he added this:   

BROOKS (continuing directly): I think the good news is, he doesn't have any policies to actually ruin our election system, as we heard from the secretaries of state. So we're going to have fair elections in this country.   

We're going to have fair elections, he said. As we noted yesterday, we thought that statementthat assertion by Brookswas just remarkably odd.   

Why did he make that confident statement? We have no idea, in part because no one directly asked.    

On the other hand, Bennett did suggest, a bit later on, that the situation wasn't as simple as Brooks had said. When Bennett offered that suggestion, this exchange occurred:   

BENNETT: David, we spoke on this program last night with Ty Cobb, who was the special counsel during the first Trump administration, and he offered an extraordinary warning. He said that he believes that President Trump is laying the predicate for an emergency declaration around the elections.

Do you see the guardrails holding if President Trump tries to use the apparatus of the federal government to intervene more directly in how elections are administered?

BROOKS: I think so. A lot of people have thought that this [speech] is a predicate for some future action.

I think, if you look at the things he's tried to do, we're helped by the fact that these [elections] are mostly state-run things, so he does not have control. And what isn't state-run is usually congressionally run. 

And so he has tried. The thing he's done successfully is the gerrymandering in Texas. He has rigged elections and Democrats have helped in California. So that part he was successful at in degrading our elections. 

But pretty much everything else he's done, through executive order and other things, courts have overruled him. And so I do not believe he will have the power to actually effect our elections.  

Good grief! What a remarkable statement:

There's really nothing to worry about. The courts will overrule him!

Before the week is done, we'll revisit one particular comment by Yevtushenko. ("Who we knew as faulty, the earth's creatures.") 

We'll go there by the end of the week. Tomorrow morning, we'll continue pursuing this immediate question:   

Brooks said we have nothing to worry about. Why in the world, why on earth, would he make that remarkable statement?  

Tomorrow: Jonathan Capehart's concern


MONDAY: The nation's first lady delivered a speech!

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2026

George Harrison wrote a song: It occurred to us some time ago:

If a person spent his entire life as a songwriter, and he only came up with "Here Comes the Sun," that would have been a case of fifty years just extremely well spent.

("And if a person lived in obscurity / Making his friends in that obscurity / Then obscurity is not uninteresting?")  

Stating the obvious, the late George Harrison (1943-2001) didn't live in obscurity. Also, he wrote many more songs than just "Here Comes the Sun."

That said, what out there, well-past-perfect simplicity! Our favorite rendition is here

(We'll go with "Colours" as our purest substitute off the bench. It's hard to do something this simple.)  

That said, do songs like those point the way toward a "politics of meaning?" Not toward that specific "politics of meaning," the "politics of meaning" Hillary Clinton described, perhaps unwisely, very early in her very first year as first lady.   

Under the mandated rules of the day, Clinton was savaged for what she said in that speech, delivered at the University of Texas in April 1993. And we don't even mean that we need that general type of a politics of meaning. We're looking for a new politics which both major tribes could endorse.  

"It seems like years since it's been clear?" In our view, Harrison wrote one of the world's most perfect songs.

In this country, we're badly in need of some modernized sort of "awakening." Barring the latest bizarre event, we'll advance our search tomorrow.

FAULTY: The president continued his "nonstop talk!"

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2026

The next night, Brooks reacted: Last Thursday night, the president delivered his major address about our scary elections.   

The next morning, Manohla Dargis described the speech in the New York Times. She even made it a CRITIC'S PICK. Here's part of what she said:

The speech consisted of 12,109 lines of nonlinear, nonstop talk and action featuring gods, mortals, monsters, weird doings, hospitality rituals and oceans of blood, tears and wine.   

No, wait! Actually, that was part of Dargis' review of the new feature film, "The Odyssey." With apologies for the error, here's the actual passage in question:

‘The Odyssey’ Review: Passion in Every Frame   

Throughout his career, Christopher Nolan has taken on big stories—though especially those of men, their struggles and their wars...  

[...]

It seems inevitable that Nolan would eventually take on “The Odyssey,” one of the foundations of Western literature. And why not? The story is a trippy, far-out blast, and has the kind of sinuous, complex layering that has become one of his signatures. Credited to Homer, the original poem consists of 12,109 lines of nonlinear, nonstop talk and action featuring gods, mortals, monsters, weird doings, hospitality rituals and oceans of blood, tears and wine. Whatever the adaptation, the tale is so ingrained in our cultural DNA that even those who haven’t read the original...will be familiar with it

That's what Dargis actually said. But as with Homer's endless tale, so too with the sitting president's! 

By now, everyone is familiar with the "nonlinear, nonstop talk" driving its ever-shifting stream of allegations. Everyone is familiar with its "monsters, weird doings and oceans of blood," even though the president's tale has only been around for six years!   

What actually happened, or didn't happen, in the 2020 presidential campaign? Tomorrow, we'll try to fashion a list of the various claims the president made in his 26-minute address.

That said: 

One night later, on Friday night, David Brooks offered his assessment of the address on the PBS NewsHour. As always, he was paired with Jonathan Capehart on the program which occupies the highest end of Blue American journalism.   

David Brooks is a good, decent person. But we thought you should see what he said.   

Full disclosure! In the immediate aftermath of the address, politicians and journalists in Blue America fact-checked the rambling effort within an inch of its life. 

Over in Red America, the Fox News Channel essentially disappeared the address. Fox chose not to discuss it at all, pretended it hadn't occurred.   

One night later, out came Capehart and Brooks for their weekly session with Geoff Bennett. We thought the assessment offered by Brooks was remarkably strange:    

BENNETT (7/17/26): President Trump once again putting false claims about the 2020 election at the center of the national political debate is where we start as we turn tonight to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. 

That's The Atlantic's David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW. Good evening, gentlemen.

CAPEHART: Hey, Geoff.

BENNETT: So, David, what did you hear in that speech last night? What do you think President Trump is trying to accomplish here?   

BROOKS: Oh, subtle. I couldn't figure it out.

(Chuckling)

He wasHe's got to get more original in his confabulation. I mean, he's just stuck on this 2020 thing. There's never been any evidence. There's no evidence. 

I think the good news is, he doesn't have any policies to actually ruin our election system, as we heard from the secretaries of state. So we're going to have fair elections in this country.

We're going to have fair elections, he said. We thought that remark by Brooks was amazingly strange.  

As you can see, Bennett began the session by saying that the president's speech had been driven by "false claims." 

As far as we know, that statement is fundamentally accuratebut it represents a new way of doing journalism, an approach which sprang full-blown from the head of Zeus in reaction to the endless counterfactual wanderings of the sitting president.   

Bennett referred to "false claims;" Brooks went with "confabulation." Tomorrow, we'll try to list the various presidential claims they were talking aboutbut what in the world, what on earth, led Brooks to say something like this:

The good news is, he doesn't have any policies to actually ruin our election system...So we're going to have fair elections. 

Why in the worldwhy on earthwould Brooks say something like that? Tomorrow, we'll show you why we ask.

In the Odyssey, sacred Homer fashioned a tale full of "monsters, weird doings, and oceans of blood." The sitting president has done something similar in the course of six long years of nonlinear, nonstop talking.

Last Thursday night, we saw two of the brightest bulbs in the Congress express their fear about what President Trump might decide to do this fall to undermine our elections. One night later, up jumped Brooks with a very strange statement. 

There's nothing to worry about, he said. Why is the world did he do that?

Tomorrow: Confabulations and fears


SATURDAY: Who in the world was he talking about?

SATURDAY, JULY 18, 2026

Yevtushenko, Watters: You're right! There was no mention of the president's ballyhooed national address on yesterday's edition of The Five.   

Answering yesterday afternoon's question, the Fox News Channel's apparent disappearing of the president's speech continued! In place of any such discussion, the normal standards of The Five prevailed:   

The program's first segment was dominated by Jesse Watters' mocking presentation regarding Ashley Webb, a visibly awkward transgender woman who somehow got onto the undercard up in Maine this past Thursday night.  

What "undercard" are we talking about? We'll let CNN explain:   

Maine Democrats’ first debate laid bare their difficulty in replacing Graham Platner   

As Maine Democrats prepare to replace Graham Platner as their Senate nominee, eight candidates pitched themselves as best prepared to take on Republican Sen. Susan Collins over two hours of debates Thursday night.

The first hour featured four candidates who were on the primary ballot in different races this year. All lost—but all earned at least 20% of the vote in their contests.

Former public health official Nirav Shah pointed to his performance in the gubernatorial primary (he earned the most first-place votes, but finished second once ranked-choice votes were tabulated). Former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson touted his state-level accomplishments. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows highlighted her attempt to disqualify President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot...

The second hour was an undercard of sorts, with four lesser-known candidates looking to break through in the abbreviated race...

And so on from there.

How had this collection of candidates been assembled? We aren't entirely sure.

According to the New York Times, "twelve Maine Democrats ha[d] signed up to run to replace Graham Platner." We've seen no one explain why eight potential nominees, not twelve, took part in Thursday's two-tier event.   

At least three debaters in the first group possessed traditional qualifications. (We saw Shah do a town hall event on C-Span last weekend. We thought he was quite sharp.)

By way of contrast, Webb does not have traditional qualifications. Her performance was extremely uneasyand as we mentioned, she identifies as transgender. 

Inevitably, this invited the extended ridicule from Watters which came at the start of yesterday's The Five, with a mocking lead-in from Kayleigh McEnany. Inevitably, producers had decided to direct the program's focus to the least polished, least qualified, of the possible nominees.

Plus, she was transgender! Watters took over from there.

After Watters finished his several minutes of mugging, no one, including Jessica Tarlov, found it within him- or herself to challenge what he had done.   

We'll suggest that you watch the way yesterday's program started, with a "disclaimer" from the clown star-adjacent McEnany that "this is not a skit from SNL."  To do so, just click here.

The Five is our rapidly failing nation's most-watched "cable news" program. Its audience is roughly three times the size of primetime programs on MS NOW. Yesterday's imitation of life is very much the way the program is typically designed to run.   

The president's Thursday night address was once again disappeared! Instead, the gang settled on the least capable of the eight Democratic hopefuls, then let the mockery of that transgender person flow.   

"No people are uninteresting," Yevtushenko said, long ago. Along the way, in that eternal poem, he even offered this

People   

No people are uninteresting.
Their fate is like the chronicle of planets. 

[...]

In any man who dies there dies with him
his first snow and kiss and fight.
It goes with him
There are left books and bridges
and painted canvas and machinery.
Whose fate is to survive.
But what has gone is also not nothing:
by the rule of the game something has gone.
Not people die but worlds die in them.

Whom we knew as faulty, the earth’s creatures
Of whom, essentially, what did we know?   

Who we knew as faulty. The poem continues from there.

"No people are uninteresting," Yevtushenko plainly said. But who in the world was he talking about right at the start of his poem? 

Could he possibly have been talking about people like those you see on The Five? People like the unnamed people who produce that show?   

You're asking an excellent question! He was likely talking about the millions lost under Stalinor about the thirty-three thousand, and after that the thousands more, described by the leading authority:  

Babi Yar 

Babi Yar is a ravine in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and a site of massacres carried out by Nazi Germany's forces during its campaign against the Soviet Union in World War II. The first and best documented of the massacres took place on 29–30 September 1941, in which some 33,771 Jews were murdered. Other victims of massacres at the site included Soviet prisoners of war, communists and Romanies. It is estimated that a total of between 100,000 and 150,000 people were murdered at Babi Yar during the German occupation.   

The decision to murder all the Jews in Kyiv was made by the German military governor Generalmajor Kurt Eberhard, the Police Commander for Army Group South, SS-Obergruppenführer Friedrich Jeckeln, and the Einsatzgruppe C Commander Otto Rasch...Sonderkommando 4a and the 45th Battalion of the German Order Police conducted the shootings. Servicemen of the 303rd Battalion of the German Order Police at this time guarded the outer perimeter of the execution site.

The massacre was the largest mass-murder by the Nazi regime during the campaign against the Soviet Union, and it has been called "the largest single massacre in the history of the Holocaust" to that particular date...  

With much, much more after that. Because Yevtushenko's most famous poem is Babi Yar (or Babiyy Yar), that may be who he was talking about at the start of People

We're sure there are different views about the poem, Babi Yar. The leading authority says this:   

Yevgeny Yevtushenko 

[...]   

Yevtushenko was one of the authors politically active during the Khrushchev Thaw. In 1961, he wrote what would become perhaps his most famous poem, Babiyy Yar, in which he denounced the Soviet distortion of historical fact regarding the Nazi massacre of the Jewish population of Kyiv in September 1941, as well as the anti-Semitism still widespread in the Soviet Union. 

The usual Soviet policy in relation to the Holocaust in Russia was to describe it as general atrocities against Soviet citizens and to avoid mentioning that it was a genocide of the Jews. However, Yevtushenko's work Babiyy Yar "spoke not only of the Nazi atrocities, but the Soviet government's own persecution of Jewish people." 

The poem was published in a major newspaper, Literaturnaya Gazeta, achieved widespread circulation in numerous copies, and later was set to music, together with four other Yevtushenko poems, by Dmitri Shostakovich in his Thirteenth Symphony, subtitled Babi Yar

Of Yevtushenko's work, Shostakovich has said, "Morality is a sister of conscience. And perhaps God is with Yevtushenko when he speaks of conscience. Every morning, in place of prayers, I reread or repeat by memory two poems by Yevtushenko: 'Career' or 'Boots'."   

We're sure that there are other views. Along the way in Babi Yar, Yevtushenko, in translation, is able to offer this

Babi Yar 

[...]

O, Russia of my heart, I know that you
Are international, by inner nature.
But often those whose hands are steeped in filth
Abused your purest name, in name of hatred.

I know the kindness of my native land.
How vile, that without the slightest quiver
The antisemites have proclaimed themselves
The “Union of the Russian People!”

It seems to me that I am Anna Frank,
Transparent, as the thinnest branch in April,
And I’m in love, and have no need of phrases,
But only that we gaze into each other’s eyes...  

And so on from there. At this site, as we've noted before, we consider Anne Frank to be a sacred being, though others may have alternate views. 

(Very happy, very young.) 

For a different translation, through PBS, you can just click here.   

That's who he may have been thinking about when he made his remarkable statement. That said, he quite explicitly went beyond that. Quite explicitly, Yevtushenko claimed that no people are uninteresting. 

He stated that view about everyone. We'll offer more musings next week.

Next week: "The politics of meaning?"


FRIDAY: Sitting president delivers address!

FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2026

Fox & Friends disappears it: We still haven't watched the full speech. Last night was one of the rare occasions when the president's viewers were falling asleep before he did!  

That said:   

It isn't always what a cable news channel might say—it's what the channel leaves unsaid! Over at Mediaite, Tom Durante advances a striking claim about the Fox News Channel:   

Fox & Friends Completely Ignores Trump’s Election SpeechDoesn’t Mention It Once in 3-Hour Show   

As other networks picked apart President Donald Trump’s prime-time address to the nation early Friday morning, Fox News went in a completely different direction.

Fox & Friends produced not one mention of the president’s address from the night before, during which the commander in chief once again attempted to cast doubt on the integrity of American elections—pointing a finger at Venezuela and China.

Instead, the regular lineup of co-hosts Brian Kilmeade, Ainsley Earhardt, and Lawrence Jones discussed the latest campaign of U.S. airstrikes against Iran, the air quality crisis choking much of America, disastrous flooding in Texas, the World Cup, and a “phenomenal” speech—by Marco Rubio.  

Near the end of the three-hour show, the F&F crew turned it over to America’s Newsroom host Dana Perino for a preview of the 9 a.m. show. In it, she also did not mention the speech.   

And so on from there.  

Assuming the accuracy of Durante's claim, that's a very sharp bit of reporting. Despite the massive emphasis the president placed on this event, it seems to have been disappeared by the Fox News Channel!  

Any news org can be defined by the events and topics it chooses to ignore. But this is quite a report from Durante:

What will they say on The Five?

Award-winning national update: Did Perino and company mention the speech on America's Newsroom?  In a sense, but not as such! 

As you can see by clicking here, Chad Pergram offered a two-minute report on Trump's desire to pass the so-called SAVE America Act. No other part of the speech was mentioned. 

Though a bit of videotape was played, Pergram never mentioned the fact that a ballyhooed national address had actually been delivered.

On CNN and MS NOW, the speech has been aggressively fact-checked. Over on the Fox News Channel, it doesn't seem to have happened at all!

NO PEOPLE... Attempted suicide twice, age 12!

FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2026

We advise you to pity the child: "No people are uninteresting?"   

Would that include the 12-year-old child who is described in this passage from a new AP report?

An immediate relative of David Brouillette who spoke on the condition that their name not be used said he was diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder and attention deficit disorder as a child—a diagnosis that Ashley Brouillette confirmed. The immediate relative described him as “extremely mentally ill” and said he attempted suicide twice at age 12 and was hospitalized multiple times.  

The relative said they’ve been estranged for years, after they broke off contact because they feared he would harm them. He did not respond to their outreach this week, the relative added.

For ourselves, we'd advise you to pity the childthe child who was so deeply disturbed when he was 12 years old. 

In this instance, the tragedy grows. This is the start of the AP report, no paywall, headline included:

AP Exclusive: ICE officer in Maine shooting has history of violent behavior, family and records say 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who shot a Colombian man in Maine this week is an Army veteran who has struggled with serious mental health issues since early childhood and never should have been given a badge and gun to patrol American streets, several of his close relatives told The Associated Press.

David Brouillette has a history of terrifying and violent behavior, according to those relatives. They accuse him of attacking women in his life over the years, and one shared a voicemail with the AP from last winter in which he told her that he thought someone should slit her throat.

Brouillette’s troubling past further challenges how thoroughly the Department of Homeland Security has vetted recruits as it went on a hiring spree to help carry out President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.   

At least 10 people have died in encounters with immigration agents since Trump launched the crackdown after retaking office, including 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national who was shot and killed by Brouillette on Monday while in his car near his home in the coastal Maine city of Biddeford.   

Regarding the young man who was shot and killed, the New York Times has quoted a neighbor describing him and his wife:   

"They were always so happy and so polite. I’d be watering my flowers in front of the house, and they would stop and say, ‘Very nice flowers.’ And their little girl would wave.”  

They were always so happy. That's what the neighbor has said. 

Once again in A Moveable Feast, Hemingway once said this about his early years in Paris:   

With so many trees in the city, you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. This was the only truly sad time in Paris because it was unnatural. You expected to be sad in the fall. Part of you died each year when the leaves fell from the trees and their branches were bare against the wind and the cold, wintry light. But you knew there would always be the spring, as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason.  

That was a recollection from the earliest years, when he said that he and Hadley were "very poor and very happy." 

As we all know, when people are very happy and very young, they should get the chance to continue. Also, when people are 12 years old and are deeply disturbed, they should ideally get capable help.

In this case, it seems that no such assistance ever took hold. The AP report offers accounts of Brouillette's conduct as an adult which are truly horrific, if perhaps somewhat familiar.

These accounts involve abuse of his two wives and his children. The reported behaviors start as shown, but they become even worse:   

Brouillette, 37, told his ex-wife Ashley Brouillette late last year that he had been hired by ICE. She said that because of his long history of psychiatric issues, she thought he was having a mental health episode and she didn’t believe him. She didn’t realize he’d been telling the truth until this week, when videos began circulating online of the moments surrounding the shooting.  

Ashley Brouillette told the AP that she spoke to her ex-husband in a Facebook audio call, and he acknowledged that he had killed Durán Guerrero. Their 18-year-old daughter, Madison Brouillette, also told the AP that her father called her Wednesday and said that he shot and killed Durán Guerrero. 

David and Ashley Brouillette were high school sweethearts who got married in 2007. She said she divorced him in 2009 because he had become physically violent with her, which began after she got pregnant with their daughter.  

According to Ashley Brouillette, he once threw boiling water at her while she was holding their child—an incident her mother Avis Collins also recounted. The abuse continued after she left him, she said.

[...]   

His oldest daughter, Madison Brouillette, said she also witnessed her dad’s volatility.

“I watched my dad struggle a lot with a lot of things,” she told the AP. She said she came home from school once and he told her he had been sitting on a tree stump with a gun to his head.

Madison Brouillette is just 18. The report doesn't say how old she was when that incident occurredand yes, the accounts of violence in the AP report get worse than what we've posted.  

This week, we've worked from a poem by Yevtushenko. "No people are uninteresting," he says as he begins:

People   

No people are uninteresting.
Their fate is like the chronicle of planets
Nothing in them is not particular,
and planet is dissimilar from planet.
And if a [person] lived in obscurity
making his friends in that obscurity
obscurity is not uninteresting...

And so on from there. But who was Yevtushenko talking about? 

No people are uninteresting? Was he talking about someone like David Brouillette? 

We'll postpone that question until tomorrow. Today, we'll end with two points:   

First, journalists will speak explicitly about "mental illness" and "mental health issues" when reporting on incidents like this. They will not discuss the possibility of serious mental health disordersthe possibility of serious mental illnessin the case of major public officials, even if the official in question had to be sent off to "reform school" at the age of 12 because of his own disturbing behavior.   

(We advise you to pity the child.)

Second point:  

A phrase has been going through our heads in the past several days: "The Politics of Meaning." 

The politics of meaning! It suddenly played an unpleasant role in the discourse of the early 1990s, then disappeared from view.  

Do we need a politics of pity, compassion, engagement, forgiveness? A politics in which we all understand that whichever tribe may be our tribe, that tribe is quite often wrong too?   

Tomorrow: Who he (presumably) meant

THURSDAY: Once the witticisms end...

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2026

...they turn to the evasions: We employ the moment to offer a gripe about the weekly Bruni/Stephens colloquy at the New York Times. 

This week's colloquy starts as shown. Our gripe concerns the rollicking, tongue-in-cheek, humorous back-and-forth style

Trump Is at His Wit’s End

Bret Stephens: Hi, Frank. We seem to be sliding back into war with Iran. Do you see any good outcome? Or, at least, a least-bad outcome?

Frank Bruni: Yeesh, Bret, you really know how to perk up a guy’s day, don’t you?

Bret: Would you rather discuss interest-rate policy?

Frank: In honor of “The Odyssey”—Christopher Nolan’s new movie adaptation opens this weekend—I’m going to describe that as a Scylla-and-Charybdis choice.

Bret: Listen, Penelope, your suitor is waiting for his answer.

Frank: Fine. I’ll abandon my loom long enough to give you a response. No, I don’t see any good outcome, because whatever happens over the next weeks or months can’t erase or rewrite the, um, odyssey that brought us to this wretched juncture. 

Witty opinion scribes, please! 

Do Times readers really need to be humored this way before they'll read an analysis of the claim that the sitting president is somehow "at his wit's end?"

In fairness, no one can blame Bruni for this feature's rollicking style. It came into being during the earlier weekly "Conversations" between Stephens and Gail Collins. The rollicking style was simply held over when Bruni was subbed in.

At any rate, is the president at his wit's end? And what might that whimsical claim even mean? 

Once the early joshing (largely) ends, it sounds like things are substantially worse than that! Stephens soon unloads in this straightforward manner:   

Bret: ...What isn’t solvable is an erratic president who issues threats he withdraws, signs cease-fire agreements he doesn’t appear to have read, claims he’s indifferent to political and economic considerations until he caves to both, and lacks not only a coherent strategic concept but an elementary understanding of what strategy is.   

Oof! Bruni is no less unimpressed with the sitting presidentbut an intriguing refusal lurks in this presentation:  

Frank: ...Never in the past 50 years have we seen anything from an American president like Trump’s determination to undermine voters’ faith in democracy itself, which is fine with him if it’s the only way to hold on to power and get what he wants. It’s a degree of ruthlessness and a magnitude of narcissism that add up to a kind of political sociopathy. I’ve written this before and stand by it: He’ll burn the whole thing down if that’s best for him. He’ll gladly rule over ashes, just as long as he’s the one ruling. 

Bruni is deeply unflattering too. Our comment would go like this:   

"Narcissism" is a clinical term. So is "sociopathy." 

Like Stephens, Bruni's an excellent writer. That said, has it ever occurred to him that this isn't a kind of political sociopathythat it's straight-up clinical sociopathy, a dangerous "personality disorder" the president's niece attributes to him in her best-selling 2020 book?   

These high-end scribes today! They've agreed that they'll never speak directly about any such possibility. 

They've agreed that they'll never speak directly. Promises made, promises wittily kept!