THURSDAY: The state of the union is towel-snapping...

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2026

...with Blue American silence thrown in: Thinking back to this morning's report, the most remarkable part of this mess is the fact that Blue America has so totally agreed to roll over and accept it.

Through whatever batch of internal wiring, there will always be someone like Greg Gutfeldsomeone who's eager to give angry voice to his misogyny-agency complaints. (We've suggested that his owners ought to get him some help.)

Every so often, someone like Jesse Watters will come alongsomeone inclined to voice such silly clatter as this about the State of the Union event:

WATTERS (2/25/26): It's also a great format for the president because the Republicans are just better looking. All of the cutaways to these Democratsit's sad. It is a sad look. Our cabinet is more attractive. The Trump family is more attractive. I'm sorryit's just the truth.

Also, Trump loves awards. It's become an award show now. You get a Medal of Freedom, you get a Medal of Honor. This person got a tax refund, she got fertility drugs.

It's like him hosting an awards show now, which is great, and that is why it's so fun...

"The Republicans are just better looking." Yes, that's what he said. 

Regarding the "fun" of the current State of the Union format, there's a great deal more to be said.

Performers like these have come alongand Fox News saw an opening. Through their mélange of apparent misogyny, "insult comedy" and utterly silly chatter, Watters and Gutfeld now drive three of the four most watched programs in American "cable news." 

(The other most-watched show also belongs to Fox, as you can see in the list below.)

For the record, these aren't just the most-watched shows; they're most watched programs by far. Over at Mediaite, Sean James delivers the mail, starting with the basics:

Fox News Romps Over Cable Competition in February, Scores 35% More Viewers Than CNN and MS NOW Combined 

,,,Fox News once again smoked its competition in February.

New Nielsen data obtained by Mediaite shows Fox News averaged 34% more primetime viewers and 35% more total day viewers than CNN and MS NOW combined this month.

Fox News averaged 2.61 million primetime viewers between Monday and Sunday—compared to 1.94 million for both CNN and MS NOW—and that figure jumped to 3.07 million viewers when just looking at primetime viewership during the week. 

Those early numbers for February show Fox News programs with 35% more viewers than the other two cables combined! When it comes to viewership for the most-watched weeknight shows, the five top shows look like this:

Average viewers, nightly cable news programs:
The Five: 4.00 million
Jesse Watters Primetime: 3.44 million
Special Report with Bret Baier: 3.10 million
Gutfeld!: 3.04 million
The Ingraham Angle: 2.90 million

All five shows are from Fox News. Hannity is a smidgeon behind Laura Ingraham at #6. 

At MS NOW, The Rachel Maddow Show checks in with 2.38 million viewers, but the program airs just once a week. At MS NOW, Lawrence O'Donnell has the most-watched full week program (1.47 million). 

At CNN, Anderson Cooper tops the list (908,000).

With respect to programs like The Five, Watters Primetime and Gutfeld!, no serious person could seriously claim that they're actual "news" shows. We'd call them propaganda messaging programs, with plenty of clowning mixed in.

There's more to say about these matters, but for today we're tired. That said:

The state of the union is very poor in the cable news department. At Fox, the state of the union is fawning and clowning and plenty of insults, with the New York Times' silence thrown in.


STATE OF THE (DIS)UNION: She's "not unattractive," Gutfeld says!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2026

Fox News [HEART] the State of the Union: Yesterday, shortly after 5 p.m., Jesse Watters was explaining why he loves the annual State of the Union address.

He's been described as "the silliest child" in the history of American TV news. Now, he began to lay out his thinking:

WATTERS (2/25/26): I love State of the Union Trump. I think it's better than Rally Trump, better than Sit Down Interview Trump, even better than "[Gutfeld!] Show Trump."

This guy owns this format. Because there's a physical division right in the middle of the chamber. So he creates a moment, then exploits the moment to get a reaction from the Democrats and the reaction proves his point. He accentuates it so deliciously that the Democrats are baited into going where they don't want to go...

In Watters' view, the sitting president "exploits" the situation, deliciously baiting the Democrats! More on that another day. We thought that first word choice was apt.

Before he was done, the thoughtful analyst further explained his (current) love for the time-honored State of the Union formatand yes, he made these "silly boy" comments:

WATTERS: It's also a great format for the president because the Republicans are just better looking. All of the cutaways to these Democratsit's sad. It is a sad look. Our cabinet is more attractive. The Trump family is more attractive. I'm sorryit's just the truth. 

Also, Trump loves awards. It's become an award show now. You get a Medal of Freedom, you get a Medal of Honor. This person got a tax refund, she got fertility drugs.

It's like him hosting an awards show now which is great, and that is why it's so fun...

No, we haven't made that up. According to Watters, the annual address is a lot of fun because it's like "an award show now." Also, the format is great for President Trump because Republicans "are just better looking."

Yes, he actually said that! In fairness, let this be said:

On The Five but also on Jesse Watters Primetime, Watters slides in and out of a slithery performance style. Routinely, he transitions from attempts at straight analysis into an undisguised, self-deprecating "simpleton" comic persona. 

That comic persona is part of his standard approach. But to our eye, he was completely serious in his comments about which cabinet, family and political party is just plain "better looking."

As you know, this analysis was being offered on our rapidly failing nation's most watched "cable news" program. (This afternoon, we'll run through the latest viewership numbers.)

To our eye, the silly lad seemed completely sincere as he told four million viewers that Republicans are just better looking"more attractive"than Dems. During this same pathetic segment, Greg Gutfeld mused about the physical appearance of Rep. Ilhan Omar, who we would score as highly telegenic, based on conventional norms:

GUTFELD: I have to point outIlhan Omar. She repulses me, and I'm trying to figure out why, because she's not unattractive.

She has an unusual amount and kind of anger. She has no right to that level of rage in the United States of America, the country who gave her corrupt ass a new life...She should be kissing the ground she walks on rather than spitting on it.

Her anger also reminds me of the radical who, given power, would destroy you. She would show no mercy for you if you were below her. Like, the look on her face is somebody who would step on your face instead of giving you a hand, and that is not the kind of person we should have in our leadership. It's not the type of person we should have in this country...

For the record, we've often said that this angry, incel-adjacent man seems to need some help. We've also said that he deserves that help. and his employer should provide it. 

That said:

Like the young native-born Nebraska men in Willa Cather's My Antonia, Gutfeld has noticed the fact that this immigrant (refugee) woman is actually "not unattractive." (Text from Cather below.) That said, he's puzzled by his reaction to the Minnesota congressional rep.

Despite the fact that she's "not unattractive," he says he finds her repulsive--and he says he wants to find out why. As it turns out, he bases his assessment on "the look on her face"the face he almost admits to find attractiveand after he shares his fearful fantasies with four million or more Red American viewers, he reaches his final assessment: 

Rep. Omar is not the type of person we should have in this country. 

Let us say this about that: 

Rep. Omar isn't exactly "in our [dissolving nation's] leadership." She is in the United States House of Representatives, and that's because she keeps getting elected to that position, by people who are still allowed to reside in Young Master Gutfeld's country.

We refer to the voters in Minnesota's Fifth Congressional Districta suburban district whose population was recently listed as shown below by the Cook Political Report:

Minnesota Fifth Congressional District
White: 59.9%
Black: 17.1%
Hispanic: 10.1 %
Asian: 6.1%
Two or more races: 5.2%

The district keeps electing Rep. Omar with 74 percent of the vote. That said, the largest demographic group in the district is Gutfeld's own "color." According to the leading authority on the district, Somalis make up three (3) percent of the district's population.

Putting it a different way, there seem to be a lot of people who don't see the look on Omar's face which this corporate messaging agent sees. To his credit, he says he wants to find out why he sees what these others don't. 

Just for the record, this $9 million per year corporate employee is rarely shy about letting his Omar-related demons emerge. A few minutes earlier, he had already made the comment shown below as he offered his own dumbed-down remarks about why he loved Tuesday night's State of the Union address: 

GUTFELD: It's almost two hours long, this thing. I felt like Trump is like a maître d' at a restaurant who is so proud of the specials that he's going to go through them whether you like it or not:

"I've got the veal scallopini, I got the lobster thermidor, I got the quail surf and turf. If you need to lose some weight, we got the Cobb saladand for Ilhan, we've got some goat on the menu.

PANEL: [Appreciative laughter]

That was before he told the world how repulsive he finds Rep. Omar, even though she's "not unattractive."

Question:

Will he ever go to that Fifth Congressional District to ask the people who were once his fellow citizens about the look they see on Rep. Omar's face?  We'll guess that the answer is no. Sadly, this is the way the possibility of union ends, not with a bang but with a strangely frightened confession, amounting perhaps to a type of a whimper

It's the look he sees on Omar's faceon a face which is not unattractive! Five hours later, he drove his own Gutfeld! show along, as he quite routinely does, with the frequently debunked claim that Rep. Omar once married her brother, but also with a typical jibe about smelly Somali food.

This is who and what he currently is. Fox pays him to behave this way.

The stooges around him happily laughed. The baldly secessionist Fox News Channel makes its money by hiring and paying the kinds of people who are inclined to play such games.

We have no major opinion about Rep. Omar, who's one among 435. We do know that several of the world's top female models have been woman of Somali ancestry, starting with Imam herself.

Somali women have often been judged to be unusually beautiful. With apologies to Rep. Omar, Brother Gutfeld may be struggling with what he doesn't want to see on that perhaps attractive face. 

We hoped to talk today about some of the astonishing claims the president made at that State of the Union address. The (familiar) misstatement referenced in this Mediaite report was especially astounding, as it long has been. 

In fairness, we've long suggested that the sitting president does in fact seem to be some (serious) version of what used to be called "mentally ill." (Many around him strike us in a similar way.)

We'll get to that another day. For now, let's return to the Nebraska of the late 19th century, keeping Herr Gutfeld in mind:

Last Saturday, we discussed the pleasure Willa Cather's narrator took as he saw his community's "immigrant girls" rise to become the mistresses of Nebraska's largest farms. 

To our mind, another part of the chapter in question described an even more fascinating matterthe way the native-born boys of the fictional Black Hawk lacked the courage to act on their attraction to those physically beautiful, spiritually vibrant Bohemian and Danish girls.

Cather's narrator was named Jim Burden. (He's a gender-shifted version of Cather herself.) This morning, Burden speaks again:
My Antonia: Book Two, Chapter IX
There was a curious social situation in Black Hawk. All the young men felt the attraction of the fine, well-set-up country girls who had come to town to earn a living, and, in nearly every case, to help the father struggle out of debt, or to make it possible for the younger children of the family to go to school.

Those girls had grown up in the first bitter-hard times, and had got little schooling themselves. But the younger brothers and sisters, for whom they made such sacrifices and who have had ‘advantages,’ never seem to me, when I meet them now, half as interesting or as well educated. The older girls, who helped to break up the wild sod, learned so much from life, from poverty, from their mothers and grandmothers; they had all, like Ántonia, been early awakened and made observant by coming at a tender age from an old country to a new.

I can remember a score of these country girls who were in service in Black Hawk during the few years I lived there, and I can remember something unusual and engaging about each of them. Physically they were almost a race apart, and out-of-door work had given them a vigor which, when they got over their first shyness on coming to town, developed into a positive carriage and freedom of movement, and made them conspicuous among Black Hawk women.

[...]

The Black Hawk boys looked forward to marrying Black Hawk girls, and living in a brand-new little house with best chairs that must not be sat upon, and hand-painted china that must not be used. But sometimes a young fellow would look up from his ledger, or out through the grating of his father’s bank, and let his eyes follow Lena Lingard, as she passed the window with her slow, undulating walk, or Tiny Soderball, tripping by in her short skirt and striped stockings.

The country girls were considered a menace to the social order. Their beauty shone out too boldly against a conventional background. But anxious mothers need have felt no alarm. They mistook the mettle of their sons. The respect for respectability was stronger than any desire in Black Hawk youth.

Our young man of position was like the son of a royal house; the boy who swept out his office or drove his delivery wagon might frolic with the jolly country girls, but he himself must sit all evening in a plush parlor where conversation dragged so perceptibly that the father often came in and made blundering efforts to warm up the atmosphere. On his way home from his dull call, he would perhaps meet Tony and Lena, coming along the sidewalk whispering to each other, or the three Bohemian Marys in their long plush coats and caps, comporting themselves with a dignity that only made their eventful histories the more piquant. If he went to the hotel to see a travelling man on business, there was Tiny, arching her shoulders at him like a kitten. If he went into the laundry to get his collars, there were the four Danish girls, smiling up from their ironing-boards, with their white throats and their pink cheeks.

[We skip past an individual story]

Sylvester dallied about Lena until he began to make mistakes in his work; had to stay at the bank until after dark to make his books balance. He was daft about her, and everyone knew it. To escape from his predicament he ran away with a widow six years older than himself, who owned a half-section. This remedy worked, apparently. He never looked at Lena again, nor lifted his eyes as he ceremoniously tipped his hat when he happened to meet her on the sidewalk.

So that was what they were like, I thought, these white-handed, high-collared clerks and bookkeepers! I used to glare at young Lovett from a distance and only wished I had some way of showing my contempt for him.
We don't recommend feeling or showing contempt for those young men. Instead, we advise you to pity the native-born boys who could see the vibrant beauty of the immigrant girls but were unable to act.

We thought of this favorite passage as Gutfeld mused last night. We advise you to pity the rapidly failing union which has fellows like these on the air as we Blues avert our gaze.

He attacks the smelly food she eats. He freely attacks her alleged "corrupt ass." He endlessly plays the incest card. He's oddly repulsed by her face.

Still coming: At long last, has he no shame?

Also, the 1962 U.S. Soviet meet, plus last weekend's hockey game


WEDNESDAY: Aliyah Rahman, in D.C.!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2026

Marimar Martinez as well: We plan to return to the State of the Union addressmainly, to the state of the union itselfstarting tomorrow morning. 

Within the next few days, we even plan to take you to the so-called "Greatest Track Meet of All Time"the legendary US-Soviet Union meet, held right there, over two days, in jam-packed Stanford Stadium. 

Thanks to one of our all-time best friends, we sat there, "just a kid like you," all through the course of that weekend. We were cheering the Americans onthough as it turned out, the most memorable and important part of that meet occurred after the whole thing was over. 

In recent days, inane tribal warfare on "cable news" brought that event back to mind.

(Good God! Bob Hayes and Wilma Rudolph won the men's and women's 100! Those are legendary names in the annals of American sports. Rudolph's name is sacred.)

A great deal remains to be said about the dangerous state of our union. Today, we stumbled upon yesterday's report from The Mirror about two women who came to D.C. this week.

We wrote about Aliya Rahman in real time, back when she was ripped from her car and hauled away, in extremely rough fashion, by the boys who weren't in blue. 

Rahman came to the District this week. Headline included, The Mirror's report starts as shown:

Disabled Minneapolis woman dragged from car by ICE reveals disturbing details of injuries

A woman who was dragged from her car by ICE agents in Minneapolis said she suffered severe damage in her shoulders.

Aliya Rahman was driving to an appointment at a traumatic brain injury clinic on January 13 when she was pulled from her car by ICE agents. Rahman, who has autism, found herself caught in a traffic jam and explained to agents who told her to move her car that she was unable to process their instructions. She was dragged from her vehicle, with footage of the incident quickly circulating online.

Rahman will accompany Minnesota Rep Ilhan Omar at the State of the Union address on Tuesday night. Rahman spoke to MS Now ahead of the event, and described the fallout from the violent incident last month.

“I have spent the last month learning the names of the tendons in my shoulder, because both of my shoulders are torncartilage and tendons. But what I haven't learned is the names of the people who did this to me,” Rahman said.

And so on from there. As the videotape made clear, her treatment was extremely rough on the day in question.

Rahman came to D.C. this week. So did Marimar Martinez, who somehow managed to survive despite being shot five times:

Marimar Martinez, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen who was shot five times by Border Patrol agents last October, will also be in attendance at the event on Tuesday night.

Martinez graciously accepted the invitation to accompany Illinois Rep Jesús “Chuy” García, writing in a statement, “I look forward to attending the State of the Union and hope the country can look at what happened to me and other victims of DHS’s unlawful behavior as a basis to call their elected representatives and demand accountability.” 

So reported The Mirror. For the record, after Martinez was shot five times, the apparent lying began, given voice by the agent who shot her.

Martinez was shot five times; somehow, she survived. Rahman was ripped from her carto appearances, she was stuck in trafficand hauled off through the streets.

We saw The Mirror's report a day too late, but these events should not be forgotten. We leave you with the question we offered this morning:

How far will this administration possibly be willing to go in November of this year? To be honest, none of us has any idea how to answer that question. 

We're living in a dangerous time. There's no way to answer that question.

Fuller disclosure: Valeriy Brumel was on the scene at Stanford too.  Fosbury hadn't yet invented the flop. 

Brumel set a new world record. According to this later report, the ovation went on for five minutes.

STATE OF THE (DIS)UNION: The state of the union is tribal!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2026

What's going to happen this fall? After last night's public event, our own assessment would have to be this:

The state of the union is tribal.

More precisely, the state of the union is deeply tribal. Indeed, "if we've learned anything from history"there's little reason to assume that we havethis deeply tribal state of affairs is also deeply dangerous. 

Despite instant reassurance from today's Morning Joe, we invite you to ponder this:

We the people have no idea what will happen this fall. We have no way of knowing how far the current administration will perhaps be willing to go.

We have no way of knowing if anything resembling normal elections will take place in November. If it seems like large segments of the population have been scared away from the polls, we have no way of knowing how Blue America will (or should) react.

Also, incipient war with Iran? We have no way to know about that!

Having made those observations, let's return to the current state of the union. The current state of the union is tribal, but it goes well beyond that.

The state of the union also seems to be delusionaland for those who believe in medical science, we mean, in some cases, that in the clinical sense.

The state of the union seems to involve the types of syndrome which were once known as "mental illness." 

(According to the leading authority, that language has fallen into disfavor within the global medical realm. The nature of the problem remains.)

The standard groaning misstatements were present last night, with one side of the famous chamber lustily cheering them on. We'll have more on this in the next few days, though we'd have to say that the widespread dislocation afflicts our own Blue America too.

Does the president believe the things he says? That has never been clear to us, one way or the other. 

But then, there's the counter reaction from our own Blue American elites. Mediaite presents a report on the instant reaction to last night's event from our own tribe's "cable news" entity:

‘Violence Porn’: Maddow Says Trump ‘Luxuriated’ In Describing the ‘Goriest Things’ In History of The SOTU 

Rachel Maddow called out President Donald Trump for “violent pornographic riffing” in his State of the Union address, claiming his speech “luxuriated” in gory details of brutal events.

Maddow characterized the president’s demeanor during the address on Tuesday as “wound up and weird,” playing a clip from early on in the speech to characterize her point. The MS NOW host called Trump’s repeated claims of a thriving economy “lies,” telling viewers that the president’s pacing was an important area of focus.

“The president didn’t seem very invested in the lies that he was telling about the economy, but he did list a whole bunch of them right off the bat. But as I say, some of the takeaway there, I think, is mostly going to be his pace and his freneticism,” she said.

And so on from there.

For the record, it's true! The president was weirdly frenetic at the start of last night's address. Just a guess:

He's accustomed to his performance style at his rallies, where he's free to make any claim which enters his head. He's also accustomed to his performance style at his Oval Office / Air Force One press events, where he simply insults any reporter who poses an unwanted question. 

Given the setting, he was perhaps a bit unsure of himself at the start of last night's address—but before long, he was back in the saddle again. As Maddow later noted, the "freneticism" disappeared.

That said:

When Maddow refers to the president's "lies," she assumes he knows that his wildly inaccurate statements are false. Medical realities being what they are, we can't say that we ourselves are totally sure about that. 

But as she continuedMediaite presents healthy chunks of text and tapewe'd say that Maddow majorly missed the point of the president's enduring appeal within the streets of our flailing nation's Red America.

On this morning's Morning Joe, at exactly 6:03 a.m., Joe Scarborough, who's very sharp, offered the standard dodge about those "gory" matters. We Blues! We've fallen in line behind the sorts of (well-intentioned) people who call their podcasts names like this:

The Best People

The best people! In such ways, we reinforce everything that's ever been said about ourselvesand we help freeze the president's support in place. 

We Blues! We exult in the way his approvals seem to have dropped below 40 percent. But that's enough to maintain the state of play which may lead to disaster this fall. 

(As we've noted in the past, we exist in a state of undeclared secession. You see that in the way one half of the chamber applauded each of the president's obvious howlers last night. We've reached a state of undeclared tribal warfaretribal war all the way down.)

Regarding the gore, let's say this:

We Blues care about some of those who have lost their lives in the nation's streets. We don't care about some of the others, about those who have been sexually assaulted and then brutally killed. 

We don't care about those otherwise honored dead; indeed, we invent dodges to whisk them away. That's part of the nature of tribal division, but we've made our disinterest clear.

(Full disclosure: Correctly, Maddow noted an unusual misstatement by the president about the vicious killing of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte last summer. It's true! The young refugee wasn't killed by someone "who came in through open borders"but Maddow glided past an obvious point. That killing represents a second way we Blues stand accused all through Red America. In those precincts, we stand somewhat credibly accused of perhaps being "soft on crime.")

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but we Blues are fallible humans too. We're skilled at reassuring the choir, less adept at understanding the ways we may appear to tens of millions of Others. 

It's been quite a few years since we first blurted this:

It's all anthropology now!

We meant there would be no happy ending to this dangerous state of affairs, no easy resolution delivered to us by our rational / empathetic qualities. Years later, the state of this struggling nation is dangerously, deeply tribal.

We've suggested that you "pity the child," but how far will the sitting president perhaps be willing to go? Urged on by the Millers, the Vances, the Hegseths and Gabbards, how far might the gentleman take it?

None of us has the slightest idea, and we aren't even willing to travel the roads which give us the chance to ask!

This afternoon: Lawrence and Gutfeld and Noem oh my! Studies in human behaviors

Tomorrow: A hockey game versus the dead! How well do we understand others?


TUESDAY: Where is the number 2 a 5?

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2026

On our most-watched "cable news" program: Sometimes, the stupidity seen on the Fox News Channel reaches a special level. 

Last night, the studied dumbness was truly world-class. Consider our failing nation's most-watched "cable news" program, the padded room procedural known simply as The Five. 

Also, consider Gutfeld!, its spiritual cousinthe painfully numb-nutted messaging show which comes on the air at 10 o'clock Eastern, 7 o'clock on the coast.

There are quite a few serious topics a show like The Five might explore. We'll cite one exampleMayor Mamdani's current proposals for the New York City budget.

Stating the obvious, the dumbbells assembled to rule this show wouldn't be able to conduct any such real discussion. Quickly, let's consider one of the topics these dumbbells did pretend to explore, a topic which was also beaten to death five hour later on Gutfeld!

Yesterday, The Five pretended to discuss one of the ways New York City was hoping to dig out from the snow. In a perfect capture of this program's gong-show essence, the "discussion" started like this:

MAYOR MAMDANI (videotape, outdoors in the snow): Due to the historic nature of this blizzard, we've increased pay to thirty bucks an hour. And you can walk into any Sanitation garage until 8 p.m. this evening, and starting again from 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. All you need is to bring is two forms of I.D. to ensure you get paid.

WATTERS (chuckling): Call it the Snowcialist state! Zoran the Destroyer says you don't need I.D. to vote, but you need five forms to touch a snow shovel.

PERINO: [Laughter] 

In that tape, Mamdani was urging New Yorkers to help the city shovel out from the snow—but what followed was classic The Five! The tape showed Mamdani referring to two forms of I.D. 

Without so much as batting an eye, Watters raised the number to five!

No explanation was offered. Struggling to compose herself, the increasingly awful Dana Perino, lovingly adjusting her hair, switched it right back to two:

PERINO (continuing directly): I mean, it's just so obviously funny. And what's great is thatI know that he's an intelligent guy, and he's quite charismaticthat he doesn't realize, as he's saying the words out loud, how ridiculous it sounds to need two forms of I.D. to shovel, but not to vote.

We'd somehow gone from two to five, and now we were back at two! Again, we've seen no statement from Mamdani concerning forms of I.D. needed to vote.

At this point, Watters threw to the disordered Young Master Gutfeld himself. After offering a hackneyed digression on bureaucracy, the little guy offered this:

GUTFELD: Five I.D.s! Now that is redundantfor shoveling snow! Now he brought it back to two, which is good...

The termagant went with five, then said that Mamdani "brought it back to two." The fellow didn't explain his commentbut when Gutfeld finally finished talking, Watters returned to this:

WATTERS: Emily, if you actually present five I.D.s and you get a shovel, can you just go to the bar for a couple of hours and come back and get paid?

COMPAGNO: I don't know. I would think so. I don't know if I have five I.D.s....

It was a modernized version of Who's On First, performed by a messaging troupe composed of corporate clowns

On this occasion, the children kept jumping from two to five and back to two, with no attempt to explain. Held until last, twice-weekly liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov now said the shoveling offer was actually a pre-existing approach used by Gotham mayors in blizzards of the past.

Sometimes an attempt to get snow shoveled may be just an attempt to do that! 

The New York Post had invented the grisly conflation of 2 and 5 in its original pseudo-report on this topic. In this follow-up report, the Post did a bit of semi-explaining, even as the paper adopted a new snarky approach:

Mamdani admin. fails to attract any shovelers for hours at NYC site

S’no thank you. 

The Mamdani administration failed for hours to attract any emergency shovelers at one Queens garage Sunday—while planning to try to dig out New Yorkers with a fourth of the force the city used for its last mega-storm. 

[...]

While city officials said they expect to have attracted a total of 1,400 public shovelers to start round-the-clock shifts beginning Sunday night, that quantity is still a fraction of the 6,454 people who were recruited for the 2015-16 winter season, which saw up to 3,500 shovelers working simultaneously at peak times that period.

[...]

The mayor has recently caught some backlash over the city’s rigorous sign-up requirements for the program.

While some have called on Mamdani’s administration to change the requirements so as to allow more people to pick up a shovel, city officials claimed there was little they can do about it.

“We know there has been some press about the requirements, and we want to be clear: As with any employer, the City of New York has a legal obligation under federal law to verify work authorization and maintain proper documentation before issuing payment,” DSNY press secretary Vincent Gragnani told The Post.

“We are not legally permitted to hand out checks without completing that process,” he said.

“Ensuring compliance with employment law isn’t red tape for its own sake—it’s what allows the program to operate responsibly and sustainably, helping keep our city running through the toughest winter days.”

Even Rupert Murdoch's Post was now making it sound like the I.D. requirements hadn't come from the laughable mayor himself. As usual, the Post's reporting wasn't precise enough to create any clear understanding about the source of the I.D. requirements.

As noted, it was the Post itself which performed the original act of conflation. It had referred to two forms of I.D. in the body of this report, transformed to five in the headline. A panel of deadbeatsfour of The Fivedecided to have some low-IQ fun with the whole situation. 

This has been standard fare on this braindead channel since the first snow fell. Going from 2 to 5 to 2 to 5, four hounds from Hell burned yesterday's hour away in this and other ways.

Stupidity's easy, explanation is hard. We may someday be able to tell you about the additional intellectual rot on display all over this channel last night.

Meanwhile, what about Mamdani's budget? That would be an actual topic.

These dopes are too flyweight to go there. Tarlov continues to suffer.


STATE OF THE (DIS)UNION: Even before Jones interrupted...

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2026

...Khanna oddly misspoke: Not long ago, the so-called Big Weekend Show was a virtual afterthought in the Fox News Channel's cavalcade of corporate messaging programs.

As the leading authority on the program recalls, the show had debuted, in a one-hour format, and under a slightly different name, in February 2021. Things dragged along for four years.

Big Weekend was expanded to a two-hour format in January 2025, then to three hours last September. This was part of the channel's decision to eliminate hours of "news reporting" in favor of an increase in group propaganda shows. 

The channel engineered this adjustment after President Trump was elected for the second time in 2024. Last September, the channel also announced that The Big Weekend Show would have regular co-hosts for the first time, with Tomi Lahren and Johnny Joey Jones cast in those roles. 

Last Saturday, it was this potent three-hour show which attempted to tell Red America how to view the Supreme Court's 6-3 decisionits to throw a large portion of the president's prevailing tariffs onto the junkheap of history. The program went on the air at 5 p.m. Three minutes later, Secretary Bessent, on videotape, had made the new situation almost impossibly clear. 

As viewers could see on the videotape, here's what the fellow had said

BESSENT: Six justices simply ruled that "Aye-Eepah" [phonetic] authorities cannot be used to raise even one dollar of revenue. This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the "Aye-Eepah" tariffs. 

Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.

Few things could be more clear! As we noted yesterday, co-host Jones was soon explaining the president's inevitable greatness as it had been manifested in this episode:

JONES (2/21/26): I can't help but laugh at Josh Shapiro...

You know, [the Democrats] play this game that's— They're not very good at it, I don't think. 

President Trump is smarter than they are. He's playing checkers, they're playing— Or, he's playing chess, they're playing checkers. 

Trump had outsmarted the Dems again! The Democrats had been playing checkers. He had been playing chess!

Along the way, co-host Lahren had littered the twelve-minute pseudo-discussion with descriptions of the Democrats' horrible motives in opposing the miraculous tariffsthe bad faith Democrats had revealed in the course of their refusal to root for the United States against the rest of the world. 

In this way, the corporate messaging was broadcast through Red America as the channel worked to maximize corporate profits even as it undermines the possibility of maintaining the American project.

So it goes as this channel's messenger children bend themselves to the scripted corporate will. But as we noted yesterday, something very unusual happened on Sunday's Big Weekend Show.

On this campus, our youthful analysts were surprised but heartened by what this development. During Sunday's 6 o'clock hour, co-host Jones teased, then later introduced an extremely unusual segment:

JONES (2/22/26): Joining us now is Congressman Ro Khanna, a member of the House Armed Services and House Oversight Committees. 

Congressman, thank you for joining us. We don't get a lot of Democrats on here, wo when we do, we want to treat you with respect

Say what? Rep. Khanna (D-CA) has been prominent on MS NOW in recent months, largely due to his tireless work with respect to the attempt to engineer the legally mandated release of the Epstein files. 

In a rare bit of bipartisan conduct, Khanna has joined with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) in his work on that project. Now, Khanna was actually appearing on The Big Weekend Show!

It was a very unusual cable event. It didn't go remarkably well, but if we the people are ever going to find a way "back out of all this now too much for us," it will have to come from events like thisfrom events in which the two Americas, Red and Blue, attempt to speak to each other.

Inevitably, the current state of our nation's (dis)union makes such undertakings hard. Consider what happened when this prominent Blue American congressman showed up on this Red American messaging program.

We start with a mutual bungle. Khanna had apparently been invited onto the show to discuss the so-called SAVE (or SAVE America) Act. This strange first exchange occurred:

JONES: Do you believe that only American citizens should vote in American elections?

KHANNA: Yes, of course. But I don't think there's some widespread problem of those who are undocumented or who don't have papers voting. By the way, there are criminal laws for that. Enforce the criminal laws. If someone is voting who is not an American citizen, then they should be prosecuted.

The problem I have with the SAVE Act is that it unfairly puts a burden on women. Women are going to, if they've changed their last name, have to go amend their birth certificate or go get a passport, and it unfairly puts a burden on students. How is it that hunting and fishing licenses count, but student IDs don't count for kids?

JONES: That's a great point!

Really? "That's a great point?"

Khanna's statement about married women who changed their names could have been the start of a real discussion about one problem with this Republican "Voter ID" proposal. But his second pointhis statement about hunting and fishing licensesseems to have nothing to do with this sweeping new proposal.

That complaint seemed to be hanging around from earlier Voter ID debatesdebates within which it constituted a perfectly valid Democratic complaint. That said, hunting and fishing licenses play no role in this new GOP proposal, but Khanna instantly brought them up.

Co-host Jones seemed to have no idea! "That's a great point," he strangely said.

Moments later, Khanna turned to hunting and fishing again. Briefly, a bit of context:

The SAVE Act has passed in the House, but it's widely believed to have no chance in the Senate. Perhaps for that reason, it's rarely discussed on Blue America's cable news shows.

Meanwhile, on the Fox News Channel, the SAVE Act is constantly cited. But in the absence of Blue American guests, the valid objections to its provisions are simply never mentioned. 

Instead, the act is treated as an unobjectionable proposal for a national "Voter ID" requirementand "Voter ID," generically presented, polls extremely well. Messenger stooges on Fox will thereby cite Democratic opposition as proof that the Democrats are plotting to let "illegals" vote:

In the absence of any coherent statement in opposition to the proposal, this attack on Those Fiendish Democrats Today will seem to make perfect sense.

So it goes when two large nations, Red and Blue, observe years of strict self-separation. In this particular case, a genuine oddity occurred:

Given a chance to voice his objections to the proposal, Khanna emitted a genuine blooper. But perhaps because he only knew the standard Fox scripts about this proposal, Jones seemed to think that he had just heard his Blue American guest articulate a "great point!"

From there, things went straight downhill. Jones continued to question Khannaand now, the instant interruptions and overtalking began. To see this overtalking in action, you can (and should!) click here

Co-host Jones had pledged to show respect, but that dream was quickly deferred. Quite suddenly, Jones seemed to be showing that he could play tough with his Blue American guest.

It's very, very, very rare to see a guest like Rep. Khanna on a Red American messaging program like The Big Weekend Show. On Sunday, a startling first attempt was made, and the state of the nation's vast (dis)union quickly swam into view.

Jones knows his tribal messaging points. Khanna didn't seem completely up to speed with respect to the topic at hand.

(Did he know that was going to be the topic? We have no idea.)

Tonight, a major source of the nation's disunion comes full-blown center stage. At Fox, we hope they try this sort of thing with Rep. Khanna (and others) again. 

The bulk of Sunday's nine-minute segment was in fact perfectly civil. At one point, a good solid laugh was shared by Khanna and the Red American panel.

Can a large modern nation expect to survive in a state of perpetual self-segregation, half Blue and half Red? We hope that Fox tries this format again. There's no other way out of the mess into which we the tribals have fallen.

Tomorrow: "Fixed ideas" v. union?


MONDAY: The state of the union involves the angry shredding of union!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2026

The latest Truth Social posts: As we speak, the state of the union seems to lack the basic spirit of union. A tiny portion of that lack of unity may even seem to trace back to the commander in chief.

The president was busy on Truth Social again last night and early this morning. Larger orgs tend to ignore this conduct. To its credit, Homey don't play it that way.

The Homey to whom we refer is the news org Mediaite.  At that site, Tom Durante offers this report about a new set of Truth Social posts:

Trump Tears Into Supreme Court in Truth Social Tirade, Predicts It Will Rule Against Him on Birthright Citizenship

President Donald Trump, undoubtedly still miffed at the Supreme Court for killing his emergency tariffs, attacked the branch of government in a Monday morning Truth Social storm, saying the same justices who ruled against tariffs may do the same on birthright citizenship.

Posting to his social network early Monday, Trump began by saying he will only spell out Supreme Court in lower-case letters “based on a complete lack of respect!”

And so on from thereand for the record, it's true! The president remains so miffed that he refused to capitalize the name of the judicial body in question.

The president still seems to be angry. The full post reads like this:

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling. For one thing, I can use Licenses to do absolutely “terrible” things to foreign countries, especially those countries that have been RIPPING US OFF for many decades, but incomprehensibly, according to the ruling, can’t charge them a License fee - BUT ALL LICENSES CHARGE FEES, why can’t the United States do so? You do a license to get a fee! The opinion doesn’t explain that, but I know the answer! The court has also approved all other Tariffs, of which there are many, and they can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty, than the Tariffs as initially used. Our incompetent supreme court did a great job for the wrong people, and for that they should be ashamed of themselves (but not the Great Three!). The next thing you know they will rule in favor of China and others, who are making an absolute fortune on Birthright Citizenship, by saying the 14th Amendment was NOT written to take care of the “babies of slaves,” which it was as proven by the EXACT TIMING of its construction, filing, and ratification, which perfectly coincided with the END OF THE CIVIL WAR. How much better can you do than that? But this supreme court will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion, one that again will make China, and various other Nations, happy and rich. Let our supreme court keep making decisions that are so bad and deleterious to the future of our Nation - I have a job to do. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP

We've advised you to consider seeing this within a medical context. We now expect to return to that line of rumination at the start of next week.

For this week, inevitably, it's all about the state of the union! The Justices who choose to attend tomorrow night's address will be right there in the front row. They'll be sitting there in their robes, as if they're ready to rule!

Then too, this: Durante followed with a second report based on that Truth Social "storm." Capital letters were still MIA. The report begins like this:

Trump Claims He Doesn’t Need Congressional Approval to Impose Tariffs

President Donald Trump pushed back on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision, saying on Monday that he doesn’t need Congress’s OK to impose tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs,” Trump posted to Truth Social on Monday. “It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!”

And so on from there. As you can see, he was still withholding those capital letters. Our advice remains what it was.

The president doesn't need an OK from the Congress? It sounds like cases may be coming where we'll all get to find out again.

The state of the union is often like this at the present troubled time. To peruse that additional Truth Social post, you can just click here.


STATE OF THE (DIS)UNION: Ro Khanna visits The Big Weekend Show!

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2026

Grant sits down with Lee: The far-flung state of the disunion had held through the rest of the weekend. 

How widespread is the current (dis)union? For one example, consider the dueling approaches adopted by different arms of This Murdoch Empire Today. 

The state of disunion remains so strong that major arms of that powerful empire can't even agree with each other! Late last Friday afternoon, even as The Five were happily clowning, the Wall Street Journal editorial board was already in print saying this:

Trump Demeans Himself as He Attacks the Supreme Court

President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apology—to the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.

Granted Mr. Trump is angry that the Court voted 6-3 to overturn his signature “emergency” tariff policy. Other Presidents have criticized the Court when they didn’t like a ruling. But Mr. Trump lit into the Justices who voted against him as traitors bought by foreign interests.

[...]

He called the liberals a “disgrace to our nation.” But he heaped particular vitriol on the three conservatives. They “think they’re being ‘politically correct,’ which has happened before, far too often, with certain members of this Court,” Mr. Trump said. “When, in fact, they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats—and . . . they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests.”

This is ugly even by Mr. Trump’s standards...

And so on from there.

So spoke the Journal wing of the Murdoch empire. But over on the Fox News Channel, a vastly different story was being told. 

By Saturday evening, the greatness of the president's brilliance was being clumsily affirmed by the four messenger children on the Fox News Channel's so-called Big Weekend Show.

At 5 p.m., the children opened the show with a trademark non-discussion discussion of the Court's ruling, and on where things go from there. 

By 5:04, new co-host Tomi Lahren was reporting that Democrats oppose the tariffs because they refuse to "root for the United States of America against the rest of the world." 

(Referring to Republicans who oppose the tariffs, she said this: "I can actually see your point.")

So said co-host Lahren. At 5:09, new co-host Johnny Joey Jones managed to bring it all home. We're cutting this down a bit for purposes of clarity, but here's what Lahren's co-host said, seeming to be speaking of the Dems:

JONES (2/21/26): I can't help but laugh at Josh Shapiro...

You know, they play this game that's— They're not very good at it, I don't think. 

President Trump is smarter than they are. He's playing checkers, they're playing— Or, he's playing chess, they're playing checkers. 

President Trump has been playing chess; the Democrats are playing checkers! After an initial stumble, that's what the co-host said.

(Co-host Lahren hotly continued, moving again to assessments of motive. "Why don't you want America to win for once?" she hotly asked, addressing the Democrats. "They just can't do it," she now heatedly said.)

In short, the state of the (dis)union was strong, even within these high-profile arms of The Murdoch Empire. But then, dear God! Here came (the tiniest hint of) the sun! We suddenly flashed on sacred Keats in one of his most famous poems!

All of a sudden, here came a hint of the sun! Last evening, on that same Big Weekend Show, an extremely rare event took place. 

It happened during the 6 o'clock hour. Breaking every rule in the modern "two Americas" book, co-host Jones shocked the world, suddenly saying this:

JONES (2/22/26): Joining us now is Congressman Ro Khanna, a member of the House Armed Services and House Oversight Committees. 

Congressman, thank you for joining us. We don't get a lot of Democrats on here, wo when we do, we want to treat you with respect. 

Say what? Ro Khanna, a very high-profile figure on Blue America's cable news channel, was appearing as a guest on The Big Weekend Show! A nine-minute segment followed, principally focused on two topicsthe so-called SAVE Act. but also the current partial government shutdown.

Alas! We'd say that Khanna's performance was amazingly poor; Jones' attempt to show respect may have been marginally worse. So it goes when warring parties make a halting first step at interacting in the public square again.

Khanna was disappointingly bad; Jones may have been worse. Still, we pray that such meetings will take place again and again and again. The participants made that very suggestion as the segment ended. 

Tomorrow, we'll walk you through what was said during the segment in question. The fellow citizens even shared a bit of a laugh at one encouraging point!

(To watch the full segment, click this.)

Tomorrow night, the president is going to speakand the ongoing state of disunion is likely to be strong. The Justices are scheduled to be sitting with the soul of the late Bob Uecker, right there in the front row!

Tomorrow: Generals Grant and Lee engage in a halting first step

Keats speaks: Briefly, we flashed on sacred Keats. Long ago and far away, here's what the gentleman said

On First Looking into Chapman's Homer

[...]

Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken
;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He star'd at the Pacific—and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise—
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.

No, it wasn't really that good. But it seemed like a halting first step!


SATURDAY: David Brooks talks the talk!

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2026

The gentleman gets it right: It reminded us of one of our favorite passages from literaturealthough, in fairness, there are surely many excellent passages we have never read.

(It reminded us of Willa Cather's treasured words in My Antonia. "I always knew I should live long enough to see my country girls come into their own," Cather's narrator says. For reasons we'll try to explain, we'll post the fuller passage below.)

For now, we're referring to what David Brooks said and did on last night's PBS NewsHour. The background here is simple:

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, had struck down a substantial portion of President Trump's treasured tariffs. In response, the president had call them (almost) every name in the book. 

There he went again! The president said he was "ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country." 

He said they were "a disgrace to our nation, those justices." He said they were "just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats."

"They're very unpatriotic," the president said, "and disloyal to our Constitution.  It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests," he said, with les Chinois specifically mentioned at one point. 

Before he was done, he even said that the six disloyal jurists were "an embarrassment to their families." Little was left unsaid. 

Last evening, on the NewsHour, Geoff Bennett mentioned this reaction. When he did, David Brooks said this:

BENNETT (2/20/26): "Disloyal to our Constitution." Is there a point at which the president's rhetoricmaybe we're already therebecomes corrosive to the institution itself?

BROOKS: Well, Donald Trump has never had an honest disagreement with somebody. And where you say, "Oh, I disagree with you," and without him going ad hominem.

And that is just his nature. It is the nature of somebody with a narcissistic personality disorder to think, "I am the center, and everything that's an assault on me cannot be anything but a shameful attack on all that is right and good."

Brooks went on from therebut he had used some technical medical language. We're hoping that's a badly needed first step down a long and winding road.

Is the sitting president caught in the grip of a narcissistic personality disorder?" And if so, what exactly does some such assessment actually mean?

Brooks was using technical diagnostic languagelanguage from the prevailing DSM-5. Assuming he meant what he said, he was saying that the president is afflicted with what is still often described as a "mental illness"but what does some medical diagnosis actually mean? 

Obviously, David Brooks is not a doctorate-holding clinical therapist. The president's niece, Mary L. Trump, actually is.

In her best-selling 2020 book, Too Much and Never Enough, she had offered a diagnosis which Brooks was now advancingbut she'd also moved beyond that one assessment. "A case could be made that he also meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its most severe form is generally considered sociopathy," she had also said.

Dating back to the 1960s, the mainstream press has agreed that medical assessments of that type must never be a part of this nation's political discourse. In our view, that was always an excellent ruleuntil the time came when it suddenly wasn't.

In our view, Brooks did the right thing last night. He did the right thing when he walked away from that long-standing prohibition. Having said that, we'll also say this:

If we as a people ever move on to a productive discussion of such medical topics, we must learn to offer such diagnoses in sorrow rather than anger. Such provisional assessments must be offered as statements of concern, not as apparent insults.

Cather's narrator "always knew" that the disregarded immigrant girls he admired so deeply would go on to preside over the finest farms in the state of Nebraska. We ourselves had perhaps always suspected that David Brooks might be the person who would start to walk across a border line which was keeping the American nation, such as it is, from a mature discussion of the sitting president's impulses and behaviors.

We admire Brooks for apparently choosing to take that first step last night. That saidborrowing (in translation) from Chekhov's widely admired story, The Lady With the Lapdog, we'll also suggest this:

 "The end is still a long way away and the most complicated and difficult part [of this undertaking] is only just beginning."

What does it actually mean when some such medical diagnosis is advanced? What is actually being said about the person in question? Brooks broke through a barrier last night. He dropped the familiar colloquial turns of phrase and employed the specific medical language. 

Had we always suspected that he might be the one to go first? Last night, the analysts stared slack-jawed at their TV screens as they saw him actually do it. 

We were thunderstruck, as they were. Also, we thought of that treasured passage from Cather, whose narrator knew all along.

We'll return to this general topic next week. Last night, for all to see as he took a first step, David Brooks got it right.

Starting Monday: What do medical diagnoses of that type actually mean? How should they be advanced?

Cather (and her narrator) speak: For whatever reason, we thought of one of our favorite passages when we saw Brooks cross that line. 

At present, we Americans are confronted with a highly unusual political situation. We should perhaps find our frameworks of understanding off somewhere in the realm of high literature, thereby escaping our debilitating fixation on whatever it is that President Trump said ten seconds ago.

With respect to Cather's book, has anyone else ever advocated with such ardor? 

The situation Cather described had little to do with our current difficult state of affairs. But Cather's protagonist, Jim Burden, had always known that the immigrant girls he so deeply admired were going to prevail in the end. 

Had we ourselves perhaps suspected that David Brooks would one day walk across a prevailing line?

We love the ardor Cather's narrator expresses in support of the "immigrant girls." This is not our struggling nation's specific situation today, but it's a wonderful form of escape from the latest fusillade of insults from that one usual source:

My Antonia: Book Two, Chapter IX

There was a curious social situation in Black Hawk. All the young men felt the attraction of the fine, well-set-up country girls who had come to town to earn a living, and, in nearly every case, to help the father struggle out of debt, or to make it possible for the younger children of the family to go to school.

Those girls had grown up in the first bitter-hard times, and had got little schooling themselves. But the younger brothers and sisters, for whom they made such sacrifices and who have had ‘advantages,’ never seem to me, when I meet them now, half as interesting or as well educated. The older girls, who helped to break up the wild sod, learned so much from life, from poverty, from their mothers and grandmothers; they had all, like Ántonia, been early awakened and made observant by coming at a tender age from an old country to a new.

I can remember a score of these country girls who were in service in Black Hawk during the few years I lived there, and I can remember something unusual and engaging about each of them. Physically they were almost a race apart, and out-of-door work had given them a vigor which, when they got over their first shyness on coming to town, developed into a positive carriage and freedom of movement, and made them conspicuous among Black Hawk women.

[...]

The Bohemian and Scandinavian girls could not get positions as teachers, because they had had no opportunity to learn the language. Determined to help in the struggle to clear the homestead from debt, they had no alternative but to go into service....but every one of them did what she had set out to do, and sent home those hard-earned dollars. The girls I knew were always helping to pay for ploughs and reapers, brood-sows, or steers to fatten.

One result of this family solidarity was that the foreign farmers in our county were the first to become prosperous. After the fathers were out of debt, the daughters married the sons of neighbors—usually of like nationality—and the girls who once worked in Black Hawk kitchens are to-day managing big farms and fine families of their own; their children are better off than the children of the town women they used to serve.

I thought the attitude of the town people toward these girls very stupid. If I told my schoolmates that Lena Lingard’s grandfather was a clergyman, and much respected in Norway, they looked at me blankly. What did it matter? All foreigners were ignorant people who couldn’t speak English. There was not a man in Black Hawk who had the intelligence or cultivation, much less the personal distinction, of Ántonia’s father. Yet people saw no difference between her and the three Marys; they were all Bohemians, all ‘hired girls.’

I always knew I should live long enough to see my country girls come into their own, and I have. To-day the best that a harassed Black Hawk merchant can hope for is to sell provisions and farm machinery and automobiles to the rich farms where that first crop of stalwart Bohemian and Scandinavian girls are now the mistresses...

Cather's narrator goes on from there to a much more striking (and tragic) assessment of the social lives of the young people in this Nebraska town. We love the ardor of his advocacy on behalf of these hard-working "country girls"Spoiler alert!whose physical beauty and physical vibrancy "shone out too boldly against a conventional background."

We love the ardor Jim Burden displays. He says he "always knew."

The situation we're facing is different. We hope Brooks took a first step.


KAFKA'S DESCENDANTS: A little small mutt went on the air...

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2026

...and evoked Kafka's hoof: For us, it has never quite reached the level you might call Kafkaesque.

That said, the phenomenon one might call The Amazement began in 2011. It had never occurred to us that some such act of misdirection could persuade so many.

That phenomenon was driven by Citizen Trump. Last night, fifteen years later, a little small mutt, with millions watching, continued to toy with the structure of the known world.

As usual, he opened his show with two to three minutes of jokes. Believe it or burn forever in Hell, this was the first joke he told:

Good evening, everyone. 

A new report claims that video compiled by the Obama Foundation shows that the former president wept in front of staffers after Donald Trump won the presidency. 

Sources say Obama was worried about the future of his country. 

You knowKenya!

Halfwits in the audience laughed. For the report on which this sally was based, you can just click here.

Friend, did President Obama weep that night? We don't have the slightest idea!

We'd score that report "a bit inconclusive." In the larger sense, though, there you have it:

Fifteen years later, the little small mutt of our failed "cable news" was still pimping the Kenya theme! (As he repeatedly does!)

On this particular evening, the Fox News Channel's Martha MacCallum was one of the flyweights surrounding this child. In our view, someone should ask MacCallum this:

Given the Catholicism you find so important, why are you willing to associate yourself with ongoing conduct like this? 

(From AI Overview: "Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum is a practicing Catholic who frequently discusses her faith, upbringing, and, as of 2025, participated in a pilgrimage to Rome with the Archdiocese of New York." For the record, and stating the obvious, there's no reason why she shouldn't do such things as that.)

MacCallum is 62 years old at this point. (The nut-ball is 61!) She still isn't willing to walk away from behavior like that, or from the giant salary her compliance continues to bring her.

Fifteen years later, this small little mutt is still out there, pimping this brain cell-killing theme. At 5 o'clock, he overtalks Tarlov. At 10, the nutcase does that!

(In fairness, someone has apparently told him to stop comparing liberal women to horses, cattle, pigs and whales, dogs and unspecified "livestock." This happens much less frequently now. He may have been told he must stop.)

On the downside, he keeps putting pictures in people's heads with undermine the possibility of the American project, such as it has been. As he does this, Blue American orgs stare off into space:

Nothing to look atmove right along, Blue America's top stars have all said.

(Full disclosure: There's always been something wrong with this guy, dating back to his famous hiring of the several dwarfs. His current bosses have found a way to make money off his unusual condition.)

At any rate, like Jesus before him, Obama wept! He wept for his countryfor Kenya! The little guy opened with that last night. The theme dates back to 2011, when Citizen Trump, caddied by Rachel's drinking pal, began his four- to five-year reign as the king of American birthers.

Today, we admit it again. As of 2010, we didn't know that a person could get so many people to believe something as stupid as that.

In fairness, many people are born in Kenya; it happens every day! For example, Lupita Nyong'o wasn't born in Kenyabut she almost could have been.

That said, Barack Obama wasn't born in Kenya. He was actually born in Hawaii. 

As we eventually noted, no other American president was ever born that far from Kenya! No matter! Citizen Trump, capably caddied by Rachel's pal, kept going on the Fox News Channel and making his ludicrous claims. 

(He'd even sent people to Hawaii to check the whole thing out!)

Before too long, surveys began to arrive. They seemed to show that an amazing percentage of voters had come to believe this baldly unfounded claim. 

At first, we assumed those surveys had to be wrong in some way. We didn't know that you could get that many people to believe some such stupid, inaccurate claim.

(The New York Times was the hometown paper of record. The editorial board endlessly dragged its heels beforestirred by our own award-winning jibesthe board finally agreed to complain.)

Back then, Citizen Trump pimped it out. Last night, fifteen years later, so did the little small mutt, with MacCallum chuckling him on. 

(This is the way the world ends, this one guy once wrote. Not with a bang but a whimper.)

All last week, we watched other stalwarts pretend to discuss the terrible crime which has occurred out in Tucson. They kept pretending to discuss this crime all day and also all night.

For CNN, we'll assume this provided a ratings boost. At the Fox News Channel, this full investment helped get President Trump out of the news at a time when his ape-invested Truth Social postalong with fatal shootings in Minnesotawere dragging his ratings down.

For us, the dumbness of those pseudo-discussions was a very tough pill to choke down. Was our species built for this line of work? Very early, this Monday morning, we flashed on Kafka's hoof.

What in the world is Kafka's hoof? In a related bit of behavior, a second cousin, three times removed, was mutting it up last night. We're thinking of Kafka's ability to dream up Gregory Samsa, perhaps his most famous protagonist, a salesman "who wakes to find himself inexplicably transformed into a huge insect."

Had Kafka once glanced down at his foot as he lay on his bed and suddenly seen something quite different? Did an instant flicker of vision place him in line with Darwin, and then with (the admittedly fallible) Freud, and perhaps with the later Wittgenstein?

Man [sic] is the rational animal, the western world has long said and been told. We were made in God's image, we've also long been told. 

We're just like the critters, it's been said and implied, except breathed into us was a soul, or perhaps just this force called pure reason. It's even been said that we humans are conscious, and perhaps that the others are not.

Man [sic] is the rational animal! Except, as we all know, we aren't!

The little guy with the giant salary opened with Kenya last night. MacCallum just sat there and took it. So did the other three analysts.

On Monday morning, we flashed on Kafka and Samsa. Did Kafka once see, in the briefest of moments, that, for all our admirable traits, we aren't what has always been said?

For the record, the Fox News Channel will roll right along. Nothing to look at! Just move along, The Voices have unwisely said!


THURSDAY: The Times reports what Banfield said!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2026

Things go downhill from there: The New York Times has finally reported what Ashleigh Banfield said. 

We refer to what Banfield said, two weeks ago, about Nancy Guthrie's disappearance.

Should the New York Times have done that? We can't say that the answer is obvious. We can tell you this:

Over the course of the past few weeks, much of the foolishness in the "cable news" pseudo-discussion has involved an obvious fact. We refer to the fact that anchors and their endless streams of useless experts weren't allowed to go anywhere near this awkward topic. 

For whatever reason, the Times has finally broken the wall of silence. It did so yesterday, in this report about "rampant speculation" concerning this unsolved crime

In Guthrie Mystery, Rampant Speculation Is Like ‘Salt on the Open Wound’

[...]

The spotlight on the case has led to tens of thousands of tips, the authorities have said. But the accompanying conjecture has complicated an already difficult investigation and has stung Ms. Guthrie’s grieving family.

The assertion that Ms. Guthrie’s son-in-law was, or could be, the “prime suspect,” as the news anchor and podcast host Ashleigh Banfield put it, risked endangering law enforcement officials’ delicate relationship with the Guthrie family, a key source of information, Sheriff Nanos said. Ms. Banfield has defended her report and maintained that the son-in-law was the focus of investigators at the time.

Such speculation has also inspired a flood of baseless tips, the sheriff added, which has distracted officers from more credible clues.

Say what? Nancy Guthrie’s son-in-law was, or could be, the “prime suspect?" 

In fact, Banfield said that early on. Yesterday, for better or worse, the Times chose to report that fact.

Having said that, is it true? Was Nancy Guthrie's son-in-law ever the "prime suspect" in this matter? Was he ever any kind of a "suspect" at all? Should he have been a "suspect," or perhaps some sort of "person of interest?" 

We can't answer those questions! We can perhaps tell you this:

Once the Times finally decided, for whatever reason, to report what Banfield said, it probably shouldn't have doctored other facts to convey the impression that her claim has been abandoned.

In fact, as you can see in this report, Banfield reaffirmed her claim, just last Thursday, in a podcast interview with Dan Abrams. Her claim may be right or her claim may be wrongbut, whether rightly or wrongly, her claim has not been abandoned

Abrams is perfectly sane. He decided to give Banfield a fairly high-end platform. She told him that her unnamed law enforcement source says his assertion stands.

Her source may be completely wrong; we have no way of knowing. There may not even be any such source! How are we supposed to know?

That said, law enforcement did conduct at least one three-hour, night-time search of the home of the person in question, and they apparently did return, a few days later, to search the woods around that house:

As we noted last week, much of the inanity of the round-the-clock cable discussions of this crime has involved the refusal of CNN and the Fox News Channel to come to terms with those superficially puzzling facts. 

In fact, an in-law's house had been extensively searched, as was the surrounding area. Last week, cable hosts kept noting those facts, then throwing to their expert guests for comment. 

The expert guests would then filibuster on some unrelated topic, after which the cable hosts would pretend that they hadn't heard the expert guest performing an obvious dodge.

Why did they search the in-law's house? Again and again, night after night, our "journalists" kept refusing to speculate or say or admit that the question existed. They speculated about everything else, but they performed an endless series of obvious dives concerning that obvious question. 

Is "true crime" reporting extremely good for cable news ratings and profits? CNN and Fox went all in on round the clock pseudo coverage, but both channels had plainly decreed that the search of the in-law's environs should be reported but could not be explained, not even provisionally.

That made for an endless series of ridiculous non-exchange exchanges. Yesterday, along came the New York Times, and when it finally reported what Banfield has said, it incorrectly made it sound like her claim has been discarded.

Journalistically, this has been a clownish cable performance pretty much all the way down. 

For starters, the round the clock cable coverage never made journalistic sense. That said, cable news is largely entertainment and agitprop under current arrangements, a fact which has become that much clearer as this journalistic charade has unfolded.

We feel sorry for all involved in this horrible unsolved crime. The "journalism" has largely been an extended charade about a tragic event.

To be clear, we don't know if Banfield's report was correct; we don't have the slightest idea. That said, cable news truly seems to love to yammer, to burn the long hours away.


KAFKA'S DESCENDANTS: "I didn't expect the killings," she said!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2026

A hint of the Kafkaesque: For one person with whom the New York Times spoke, her experience of the past year may have become Kafkaesque. 

It's as we noted in yesterday's report. The Times spoke with thirteen Democratic or Dem-leaning voters for an "America in Focus" report. Concerning the current state of the nation, one of those voters said this:

CANDY, 46: I would say it’s exactly what I imagined it was going to be like. I called out a lot of the things that are currently happening, and I keep calling out things that I feel are going to happen that haven’t happened. Maybe I didn’t think citizens were going to get killed. But my thoughts and my feelings about what was going to happen are close enough.

On balance, this womanage 46, a Nevada residentsays she hasn't been surprised by the past year's flood of events. On the other hand, she says she "maybe" didn't think that two people were going to be shot and killed in the streets of Minneapolis as part of the overall deal. 

(Earlier, in Chicago, how did Marimar Martinez manage to avoid being killed? She was shot five times by federal agents, but somehow managed to survive. It's fairly clear that those federal agents proceeded to lie about what Martinez had supposedly done before one opened fire. We'll guess that Candy, a good decent person, also may not have foreseen conduct like that.)

For Candy, a Nevada resident, did those killings start to make the state of play perhaps feel a bit Kafkaesque? We can't necessarily say that they did, Yesterday, though, we cited these statements by two other people with whom the New York Times spoke. 

KATIE, 36: I wake up in the morning and I look at my phone, and it’s another headline. I saw something on Facebook the other day that was from The Onion. And I had to double-check to make sure that that’s where it was from because, the reality that we’re living in right now, it’s hard to tell the difference between real life and satire, which is not a good place to be in.

[...]

JOHN, 43: If you asked me this 12 years ago, it was something no one really talked about. And now it’s a daily conversation...It’s like, daily, you could have three or four things that you would never even think 10, 15 years ago would happen. 

For that 36-year-old Virginia resident, "the reality that we’re living in" may no longer exactly feel like "real life." Meanwhile, John, a resident of New Jersey, says things are happening every daythings you never could have imagined not that long ago.

Does this rise to the level of Kafkaesque? Not necessarily, nothough the ghost of Rod Serling may be around and about as Blue Americans occasionally flirt with hints of The Twilight Zone.

Below, we'll offer the strangest example of shattered presumptions of which we ourselves are aware. First, though, we turn to something Wes Moore said on CBS this past Sunday night. 

Governor Moore (D-Md.) was interviewed by Norah O'Donnell. The gentleman is unmistakably sharp. At one point, he even said this:

Gov. Wes Moore argues Biden "needed to do more" on immigration but blasts Trump's crackdown

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore told CBS News immigration is an issue the country has "punted on for a very long time" amid the nation's heated debate over federal enforcement.

While he has publicly condemned the Trump administration's immigration policies as a "cruel and reckless political agenda," he told CBS News senior correspondent Norah O'Donnell that former President Joe Biden "did not have this right."

"We needed to do more. That, I don't think anyone can argue that we had the system worked out under President Bidenthat immigration was worked out," he said during a town hall that aired Sunday. 

Say what? Under President Biden, the southern border was handled so poorly that "I don't think anyone can argue that we had the system worked out?" 

Is a fellow like Governor Moore really permitted to say that? Apparently, yes, he is. Just last weekend, over in Munich, Hillary Clinton may have said a somewhat similar thingor then again, she may not have.

For us Blues, the world has gone borderline Kafka during this second Trump term. For Reds, is it possible that some such dislocation occurred during the Biden years? Did some such dislocation occur as they watched footage of unauthorized immigrants streaming across the southern borderfootage we Blues were neither asked nor allowed to see on our own cable channels?

Fellow citizens, we're just asking! Experts say that we the humans, being heavily tribal, aren't wired for such ruminations. 

For our money, we think that Moore is on the right track when he inexplicably decides to state the obvious. For ourselves, the world hasn't exactly gone Kafkaesque during this second Trump term. 

At times, the world has gone full Witnesshas made us long for the type of internal exile the Harrison Ford character undertakes during that Oscar-nominated 1985 film.

In that film, Ford's charactera Philadelphia police officerflees to Pennsylvania's Amish country in an echo of what Plato said in The Seventh Letter:

"When I saw all this, and other things as bad, I grew disgusted and withdrew from the wickedness of the times."

Ford's character flees from the wickedness of the times, partly in hopes of saving his own life. Eventually, like Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, he sees that he has to "return to the fight."

(Like Bogey, he leaves the love of his life behind in the person of Kelly McGillis. "We'll always have Amish country," he might as well have said as he heads back to Philadelphia at the end of the film.)

We ourselves have felt that longing for withdrawal as the flooding of the zone has rolled on and on and on. We agree with John, age 43it's reached the point where there are so many bizarre events each day that it has become almost impossible to even pretend to keep up.

Still, as we Blues watch the Trump agenda unfold, has the world gone full Kafkaesque? In fairness, Kafka's protagonist, Gregory Samsa, had to adjust to the fact that he had somehow turned into an insect. 

Has the epistemic dislocation been that extreme for us? For most people, the answer is presumably no.

(Then too, there are all those people in Red America. As we Blues have sometimes proposed and done weird things, had the world gone Kafkaesque for them before the return of President Trump?)

For Blues, flickers of Kafkaesque have possibly come into view as the society's normal procedures have been upended again and again. For ourselves we flashed on Kafka this Monday morning as we struggled with two fell weeks of pseudo-coverage of the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, age 84, from her Tucson home.

Two "cable news" channels had gone all in on the pseudo-coverage. Around the clock, all day and all night, the channels had presented repetitive pseudo-discussions, in which observers who had nothing to say were sent on the air to say it.

When the very occasional factlets popped up, the channels persistently bungled them. As we grew disgusted by the incompetence of the times, we found ourselves thinking of Kafka's hoof.

We suddenly flashed on Kafka's hoof? Tomorrow, right here, we'll explain.

On the whole, we're looking for ways to understand the very unusual world within which we're currently being floodedinto which we've all been thrown. Last week, Jamelle Bouie, who's very sharp, said it's racism, complete full stop.

The columnist said that's what it is. We think it goes beyond that.

Tomorrow: Fleetingly, Kafka's hoof