THURSDAY: The fact that this conduct takes place is news!

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2026

It should be reported as such: Here at the heart of this sprawling campus, we'd like to see Jessica Grose sign up with her local cable provider. 

After that, we'd like to see her start watching the Fox News Channel. We derive this desire from her latest column for the New York Times. 

Headline included, the column starts like this:

The Manosphere Continues to Devolve

In the new documentary “Inside the Manosphere,” the English filmmaker and host Louis Theroux describes the buff, screen-addled U.S. and British influencers he interviews as creators of “the new world of men who are redefining what it means to be a man.” But I came away from the movie, now on Netflix, thinking that it eclipsed this framing.

Young men may finally be waking up to the utter emptiness of the manosphere’s messaging.

So begins Grose's new columnor is it really a "subscriber-only newsletter?" Until today, we had never tried to puzzle it out, and the arcana of that other sprawling enterprise can sometimes be overwhelming.

That said, Grose has been at her desk "for Opinion" since 2021, and her latest offering is about the manosphere. As to what that sprawling entity is, she is soon offering this:

[continuing directly
The manosphere—a loose collection of male podcasters and social media stars who push misogynistic and ultraconservative views—is not new. The term is at least 15 years old and rose to a frequent topic of mainstream discourse during Donald Trump’s first presidential term.

The men Theroux interviews are pushing some of the oldest grifts and ancient hatreds in the book, even if they’ve been using new technology to beam those views out to a global audience. The creators Theroux follows—young men with handles like HSTikkyTokky and Sneako—share very familiar ideas of what it means to be a man, ones that predated the rise of social media: making money, having big muscles, driving expensive cars and sleeping with as many women as possible. Though Theroux does not talk to Andrew or Tristan Tate, the most prominent modern manosphere influencers, clips of the Tate brothers appear throughout the film. 

Superficially, these men are selling their audiences bizarre and extremist ideas—women shouldn’t vote; covering one eye in a photograph is a reference to a satanic plot—against the backdrop of the babes and Lamborghinis they “possess.” There’s a whole section of the documentary in which it seems every conversation Theroux has devolves into an antisemitic conspiracy theory involving the Rothschilds, citing “the Jews” who control the one world government or the media or Theroux himself. These specific conspiracy theories have been appearing in pamphlets—the old-timey version of viral videos—since the 19th century.

It’s unclear if any of the men actually believe what they say, or if they’re just shouting the most outrageous nonsense possible in order to maintain the attention of their audiences and get a rise out of Theroux and other spectators. They are quite self-aware about their place in the attention economy. “If I’d just done good things, I would never have really blown up on social media in the first place,” one of the men tells Theroux.

Sic semper the so-called manosphere. Grose goes on to suggest that the influence of this unfortunate movement is lessening. Recalling President Kennedy in Berlin, we'll only say this about that:

Let her come to the world of cable TV and watch the Fox News Channel!

In short, we're begging Grose to extend her range beyond the realm of "male podcasters and social media stars." We're asking her to acquire rights to the "new technology" now dominated by the Fox News Channel. 

If it's grifts she wants to cover, we're hoping she'll fire up the cable and watch several of that outfit's most-watched "cable news" showsand that she'll then report the gruesome behavior she sees.

We've been waiting for Godot to do thatrather, we've been waiting for Kristof and Brooks and Stephens and Cottle and for someone, anyone, who's typing for The Atlantic.

(Helen Lewis, across the pond, please come on over and down!)

Mutts like them will never do it! Perhaps a relative newcomer will.

If Grose accepts this cable news challenge, she'll be arriving on the scene a bit late. Pete Hegseth is gone from Fox & Friends Weekend, where he co-hosted with Rachel and Will right through the last election. 

He's now at the Pentagon, where he has, among other things, commissioned "a controversial pastor who supports repealing women’s right to vote" (see above!) to lead a worship service.

In our view, people are free to believe what they believe, even including what they believe about gender relations. Borrowing from Lincoln, "it may seem strange" to think that women should be denied the right to vote, "but let us judge not, that we be not judged."

(Full disclosure: Lincoln himself may have been a bit late to the game regarding the suffrage question.)

At any rate, even if Hegseth is gone from Fox, more virulent purveyors remain. Having abandoned our faith in Godot, we turn our eyes toward Grose.

At this point, we're going to try to restrict ourselves to purely descriptive language:

Each night, they pry the lid off the can at Fox and the swill comes slithering out. The Blue old liners at the Times refuse to report and discuss this remarkable fact. We're hoping a relative newcomer willbut also, with luck, Michelle Goldberg!

Whatever you think of the conduct in question, the fact that this conduct takes place is news! It should be reported, discussed.


BATTLES: The battles are fought by people like these!

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2026

Gutfeld's medical specialists: James Talarico is 36. If anything, he may look somewhat younger.  

Adjusting for age, he strikes us as an obvious high achiever. Yesterday, we turned to the leading authority on his career for this assortment of basics

James Talarico

James Dell Talarico (born May 17, 1989) is an American politician, Presbyterian seminarian, and former educator who has served since 2018 as a member of the Texas House of Representatives. Talarico is the Democratic nominee for the 2026 U.S. Senate election in Texas...

Talarico graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a Bachelor of Arts in government. He later joined Teach For America, where he taught sixth-grade English language arts in San Antonio. Afterward, he served as the Central Texas executive director for Reasoning Mind, a nonprofit focused on bringing technology to low-income classrooms. He later graduated from Harvard University with a Master of Education degree in education policy.

Talarico serves as vice chair of two bodies in the Texas House: the Trade, Workforce, and Economic Development Committee and the Subcommittee on Academic and Career-Oriented Education under the Public Education Committee. He also serves on the Public Education Committee and the House Administration Committee. 

[...]

Talarico's maternal grandfather was a Baptist preacher in South Texas who Talarico says taught him that Christianity "is a simple—though not easy—religion, rooted in two commandments: 'Love God and love your neighbor.' " 

At age 36, Talarico "is the Democratic nominee for the 2026 U.S. Senate election in Texas!" Like President Clinton before himThey rarely voted for me, but you'll never meet a finer bunch of people than the Arkansas Pentecostalshe knows how to talk about Christianity, as a Democrat, to a southern red state audience. 

At age 36, he's the Democratic nominee for the Texas Senate seat! We'll take it as obvious that certain Red American elites are afraid he could possibly win. 

We don't know if Talarico really can possibly win. That said, we'll take it as obvious that such fears explain what happened on Tuesday's edition of The Five, where the candidate was compared first to a deranged mass murderer / sexual pervert, then to the lunatic leader(s) of one or two lunatic cults. 

Those astounding comparisons were given voice by a pair of people we regard as rather strangeby Greg Gutfeld, age 61, but also by Emily Compagno, age 46. 

In the main, we're inclined to regard Gutfeld and Compagno as corporate messenger children for the profit-seeking Fox News Channel. Setting that impression aside, we'll offer this assessment with a high degree of confidence: 

Judged by any traditional standard, Gutfeld and Compagno belong on this nation's most-watched "cable news" program in much the way we should be hired as artistic director for Moscow's Bolshoi Ballet. 

We don't think they belong in their posts; others find their behaviors refreshing. Today, let's offer two quick examples of what those behaviors tend to be. 

Quickly, we'll start with the Christianity. Concerning the southern border, Talarico said this in a Democratic debate back at the start of the year: 

So, my family is from the border. My mom grew up in Laredo, Texas. I feel like Texans understand this issue of immigration more so than people in other states, because we live with it, both the benefits and the challenges. 

So, what I have said is that our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front and a lock on the door.

We can welcome immigrants who want to live the American dream, we can build a pathway to citizenship for those neighbors who have been here making us richer and stronger, and we can keep out people who mean to do us harm.

So said Talaricounless you watch the Fox News Channel, in which case he said something quite different:

On March 3, Talarico won the Democratic Party's nomination for the Texas Senate seat. Two days later, right there on The Five, Dana Perino, age 53, introduced a doctored bit of videotape in which Talarico was shown saying this:

Our southern border should be like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front.

Full stop! The Fox News Channel had disappeared the part of his statement about having a lock on the door!

In fairness to Perino, she probably didn't know that her corporate owners had created a doctored bit of tape. Also, the pay can be extremely good at the "news channel" where Perino is cast, on this nation's top-rated show, as the co-host who isn't nuts.

(For a fuller account of the doctoring of Talarico's statement, see this fact check by AFPby Agence France-Presse. Needless to say, Elon Musk, age 54, is part of this pathetic story. Somewhat instructively, we had to travel across the pond to find a formal fact-check of this pathetic misconduct.)

We'll assume that Perino didn't know that Talarico's statement had been doctored. We'll assume that Gutfeld and Compagno are unaware of this matter too.

There's no real assumption, on a show like The Five, that the four pro-MAGA co-hosts have any idea what they're talking about. With that, we move on to this:

With apologies, we're going to cite some conduct we regard as ugly and destructive, but also as deeply stupid. With apologies, we're going to take you on a brief trip inside Gutfeld's mind.

We'll start with Monday night's (primetime) Gutfeld! program. As always, the gentleman started with a few minutes of "jokes."

Most simply put, the fellow simply can't seem to quit a certain type of loathing. With apologies:

At 10:03, his final "joke" went exactly like this:

GUTFELD (3/16/26): And finally, the Best Picture [Oscar] went to One Battle After Another.

And no, that's not the name of the documentary about Rosie and her gynecologist.

In such ways, this undisguised nutcase conducts his own disordered battles everywhere all at once. Last night, at 10:03, he shoved his grimy little nose where it doesn't belong once again:

GUTFELD (3/18/26): And finally, comedian Chelsea Handler says that the house that she bought from RFK Jr. was deemed "toxic and unlivable." 

Which are the same words used by her gynecologist.

The man is 61 years old! Except for its effect on the world, we regard this as sad and pathetic. 

Simply put, he just can't seem to quit this general practice! On Tuesday night, no gynecologists were mentioned. But in his first three minutes of jokes, he compared Michelle Obama to a horse; he complained about Rosie O'Donnell's unbelievably hairy back; and he told us what President Macron thinks about his wife's penis.

We've advised you to pity the child. Let's return to our starting place:

On Tuesday's edition of The Five, this same person said he gets "Ted Bundy vibes" from the vastly more accomplished Talarico. Moments later, Compagno described Talarico as "a terrifying child" who makes her think of David Koreshand, apparently, of this second cult leader.

Over the next few days, we're going to post fuller transcripts of what these two people said about Talarico. We think a record should be created for future generations, assuming such people are going to exist.

That said:

All around the ramparts of Blue America, the strange behavior of people like Gutfeld and Compagno is met by complete, total silence. We leave you today with a question:

Whose behavior is stranger, uglier, less excusable? The behavior of the peculiar people who play the game the Fox News Channel way? Or the behavior of the self-impressed Blue elites who insist on averting their gaze?

("Thank you, silence," Alanis Morissette said. We don't think she meant this.)

Tomorrow or Saturday: What Gutfeld and Compagno said, not that anyone cares

Additional bonus language: Within the context of the song and the larger body of early work, we regard this as profound implied advice:

Thank you, India
Thank you, terror
Thank you, disillusionment
Thank you, frailty
Thank you, consequence
Thank you, thank you, silence

"You learn," this youthful seer also said. People, where in the world did that very bright person ever get that idea?

WEDNESDAY: Everyone Perino knows...

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026

...already has a passport: Would some people be deprived of the right to vote under terms of the SAVE (or Save America) Act?  

How many people might be so deprived? Who might those people be? 

Yesterday afternoon, we said there has been remarkably little energy directed toward the task of trying to answer such questions. That might be because no one ever thought the bill would actually make it through the Senate. Also, it may just be a consequence of "the flooding of the zone," in which news orgs are overwhelmed by the profusion of foolishness which does in fact need to be covered. 

We've alleged, you can decide! For today, we thought you might like to see what happened yesterday on The Five, during the ritual interruption and overtalking of Jessica Tarlov, the show's twice-weekly punching bag. 

During yesterday's second segment, the five co-hosts pretended to tackle the knotty topic known as the SAVE Act. Eventually, Tarlov tried to explain how the proposed procedures would work. 

Even if Tarlov hadn't been interrupted, we aren't sure she could have done it. For amusement purposes only, we direct you to something said by Johnny Joey Jones before the start of Tarlov's effort.

Jones routinely engages in self-pitying reminiscences about the way he grew up in Dalton, Georgia. (Later, he served with great valor as a Marine bomb technician in Afghanistan.) Yesterday, with respect to the kinds of documentation involved in the SAVE Act, he offered this unintentionally comical family portrait

JONES (3/17/26): I might be the only one here that grew up, like, really far from middle classmaybe not. Grew up poor, had a great life, had food on the table. We also had our birth certificates...

At one time, a certain reminiscence was common within parts of this nation's lower-income world:

We were poor, but we didn't know we were poor.

Recalling the great life he miserably had, Jones had now rewritten that bromide:

We were poorbut we all had our birth certificates!

Based on that reminiscence, Jones went on to reject the idea that people can't assemble the documentation required by the SAVE Act (whatever that documentation might actually turn out to be). 

Tarlov then began trying to explain the alleged problems with the proposal. She started off with this:

TARLOV: When you talk about proof of citizenship, that comes one of two ways. First, a passport, which only 50% of Americans have. It costs $165 to get a passport...

From there, she turned to the question of birth certificates. Soon, the tedium became unbearable for her four pro-MAGA co-hosts. Inevitably, the interruptions started, with Master Gutfeld saying this:

TARLOV: Why are you interrupting me?

GUTFELD: Because it's fun!

We doubt that Tarlov could have explained the possible problems with this proposal if she'd been given the full hour. But soon, the MAGA co-hosts were asking her questions like this:

GUTFELD: Do you know somebody who doesn't have an ID? (Sarcastically) Tell me about it! 

You've spent years talking about a person who could not get an ID and I've never met one. I've never met one! Why should I believe this now? 

PERINO (puzzled): How many people in your life— But how many people in your life don't have a passport?

TARLOV: In my life as an upper middle-class person? I don't even know...

Perino seemed to be puzzled! Doesn't everyone Tarlov knows already have a passport? Does anyone else even count?

Tarlov had already said that 50% of Americans don't have a passport, and that getting one costs money. But so went the cluelessness as the pro-MAGA hosts pretended to be trying to examine a complex policy question.

Might some or many lower-income people be unable to afford getting a passport?  Presumably, the answer would be yesbut thoughts of such people were swept away as the interruptions, followed by the inevitable joking, brought the latest imitation of a news discussion to a premature end.

This was yesterday's second segment. In the segment which followed, vampires flew out of the drapes in the manner described this morning

Talarico's like Ted Bundy, one of the undead said. No, he's more like David Koresh, a second creature opined.

More on that astounding third segment will follow. Under prevailing rules of the Blue American game, you'll see it nowhere else.

Final point: So how would the SAVE Act work? At this site, we still have no real idea!


BATTLES: The hopeful reminds him of Ted Bundy!

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2026

He reminds her of David Koresh: Tinseltown rarely gets it wrong. 

We only wish we could say the same thing about the cowardly kittens who wrestle in their cardboard boxes. They're sold to us in Blue America as the journalistic giants we can trust. 

Tinseltown gets it right! Last night, the battles weren't everywhere all at onceit wasn't exactly one battle after another--but the warfare came remarkably close. 

On MS NOW, the sitting president was attacked as a "sociopath" again, at 10:09 p.m. Eastern. (He was attacked as "a pathological liar" at 10:04. He was attacked as "a madman who thinks bombing is fun" at 10:10.) 

That battle was fought on MS NOW. On the Fox News Channel—indeed, on this nation's most-watched "cable news" programthe warfare yesterday virtually defied comprehension. 

In the second segment of The Five, the ritual "over-talking of Tarlov" had already occurred. That opened the way for what happened in the program's third segment, when this collection of messenger children had been told that they should pretend to discuss James Talarico, the Texas Senate hopeful:

The Five: Tuesday, 3/17/26
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered
Jessica Tarlov: twice-weekly punching bag
Johnny Joey Jones: co-anchor, The Big Weekend Show
Dana Perino: co-anchor, America's Newsroom
Greg Gutfeld: host, Gutfeld!

The over-talking had already happened during the second segment. Below, you see a brief overview of the Senate candidate they would now pretend to discuss, even as the cowardly kittens in Blue America agreed to avert their gaze:

James Talarico

James Dell Talarico (born May 17, 1989) is an American politician, Presbyterian seminarian, and former educator who has served since 2018 as a member of the Texas House of Representatives. Talarico is the Democratic nominee for the 2026 U.S. Senate election in Texas and has been called a "rising star" among Texan Democrats.

Born in Round Rock, Texas, Talarico graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a Bachelor of Arts in government. He later joined Teach For America, where he taught sixth-grade English language arts in San Antonio. Afterward, he served as the Central Texas executive director for Reasoning Mind, a nonprofit focused on bringing technology to low-income classrooms. He later graduated from Harvard University with a Master of Education degree in education policy.

Talarico serves as vice chair of two bodies in the Texas House: the Trade, Workforce, and Economic Development Committee and the Subcommittee on Academic and Career-Oriented Education under the Public Education Committee. He also serves on the Public Education Committee and the House Administration Committee. 

[...]

Talarico attended Round Rock ISD schools and graduated from McNeil High School in Williamson County, Texas...Talarico's maternal grandfather was a Baptist preacher in South Texas who Talarico says taught him that Christianity "is a simple—though not easy—religion, rooted in two commandments: 'love God and love your neighbor.' " 

He grew up in a tiny, dusty Texas town, emerged from a small rural high school. Except wait! 

Round Rock is a Texas city whose population exceeds 135,000. The back-country high school from which he emerged is home to 2,700 students!

"Love God and love your neighbor," he says his grandfather said. This leads to the disgraceful GOP scam which Tarlov quickly described yesterday, though only in a very limited manner. 

We'll detail that scam at some point in the next few days. Our question is this:

Will Jeffrey Goldberg ever get off his ascot and report this disgraceful behavior in the pages of The Atlantic? 

(Also, will the PBS NewsHour get off its aspic and detail this McCarthy era-level scam? Will the program dare to name the people who are conducting this scam? Or will standard avoidance prevail?)

Tarlov went first, profiling Talarico. Then the zombies closed in.

In Tinseltown, the zombies were featured in Sinners this year. Yesterday, there they were, behaving in astonishing ways on the "cable news" program whose viewership dwarfs that of our own Blue American shows. 

When the zombies came rolling out, a basic fact emerged. Simply put, they aren't impressed with this Senate candidate! 

As Dana Perino covered her eyesshe's cast as the MAGA supporter who isn't insaneastounding assessments emerged:  

As it turned out, the zombie Gutfeld isn't impressed with the Texas Senate candidate. He said that Talarico is a good deal like "a radical Islamist," in that he believes that people who don't share his views "are evil."

"I'm getting Ted Bundy vibes," this undisguised zombie eventually said. As you may recall, Ted Bundyhe was executed in 1989was this vastly disordered person:

Ted Bundy

Theodore Robert Bundy was an American serial killer who kidnapped, raped and murdered dozens of young women and girls between 1974 and 1978. His modus operandi typically consisted of convincing his target that he was in need of assistance or duping them into believing he was an authority figure. He would then lure his victim to his vehicle, at which point he would bludgeon them unconscious, then restrain them with handcuffs before driving them to a remote location to be sexually assaulted and killed.

Bundy killed his first definitively-known victim in February 1974 in Washington, and his later crimes stretched to Oregon, Colorado, Utah and Idaho. He frequently revisited the bodies of his victims, grooming and performing sex acts on the corpses until decomposition and destruction by wild animals made further interactions impossible...

And so on from there. The craziest zombie on the panel said he gets "a Ted Bundy vibe" from the Texas Senate hopeful! 

Soon after that, it came time for Emily Compagno to offer her thoughts and impressions. Among other extremely strange remarks, she offered this assessment: 

"He's like the goblin version of Pete Buttigieg, where he's going to take off the outer layer and you're going to see a David Koresh." 

That's one of things she said! As you may recall, David Koreshhe died in 1993was this disastrous person:

David Koresh

David Koresh was an American cult leader and preacher who played a central role in the Waco siege of 1993. As the head of the Branch Davidians, a religious sect, Koresh claimed to be its final prophet. His apocalyptic Biblical teachings, including interpretations of the Book of Revelation and the Seven Seals, attracted various followers.

[...]

Koresh was alleged to have been involved in multiple incidents of physical and sexual abuse of children. His doctrine of the House of David did lead to "marriages" with both married and single women in the Branch Davidians.

A six-month investigation of sexual abuse allegations by the Texas Child Protection Services in 1992 failed to turn up any evidence, possibly because the Branch Davidians concealed the spiritual marriage of Koresh to Rachel's younger sister, Michele, when she was 12...

Let it be said that those are largely allegations. But this is the person who comes to mind when Compagno thinks of the Senate hopeful.

(Later, she described the candidate as "a terrifying child" who "grew up on the Love Israel cult in Washington, or something frightening." Could she possibly have been referring to the Love Israel commune in the state of Washington, back in the 1970s? At this point, we're prepared to guess that that's who she did have in mind!)

So the battle went. To watch the entire segment, courtesy of the Fox News Channel itself, you can click right here.

During this segment, Talarico was compared to a mass murderer / sexual pervert, but also to at least one disordered cult leader. "You are right that he is dangerous," the frightened Compagno said.

In the next few days, we plan to transcribe the fuller set of remarks in this segmentthe remarks which won't be reported or discussed in the pages of the New York Times or at The Atlantic (or on MS NOW). We think this conduct should be memorialized for future historians, if any such people turn out to exist.

At any rate, this was one of the battles enacted yesterday on the imitation "cable news" channel where, just to be honest, it's one manufactured battle after another, pretty much all at once.

Two weeks ago, these same beasts amused themselves by pretending that President Clinton was ogling photos of sexual victims during his deposition for the House Oversight Committee. We Blues have heard nothing about that egregious journalistic misconduct from the people at Blue America's exalted news orgsfrom the people we're told we can trust.

Yesterday, the collection of zombies comported themselves in the manner described. It was one battle after another as Perino pretended she couldn't see or hear what was happening all around her. 

(In fairness, the paychecks are large, Red and Blue paychecks alike.)

Perino pretended she couldn't see and couldn't hear. Over here in Blue America, our most exalted corporate stars affect the very same pose!

Tomorrow: More of what was said last night? Or will the battles move on?

Also this: As of this very morning, Mediaite has blown right past this astonishing conduct. 

Instead, the site has reported this speck of nothingness from the very same show!


TUESDAY: Does anyone know how the SAVE Act works?

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2026

Could the SAVE Act possibly pass? Will the SAVE Act really go down to defeat, in spite of the sitting president's insistence that it must pass?

People still seem to think that the GOP won't be able to assemble the 60 votes in the Senate and won't vote out the filibuster. At this site, we can only hope those predictions are accurate. 

Along the way, if only as a learning experience, consider what Jonathan Capehart said last Friday night. We take you live and direct to that evening's PBS Newshour.

At the end of his weekly segment with Brooks and Capehart, Geoff Bennett raised this topic. He spoke first with David Brooks. Their exchange went like this:

BENNETT (3/13/26): In the time that remains, I want to get to the SAVE Act, which you both know. It's this bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. It would require stricter voter I.D. rules. Supporters say it's about election integrity. Critics say it could make voting harder for millions of eligible Americans, to include Republicans.

David, for years, there's been this theory in Republican politics that higher turnout benefits Democrats. Recent elections have proven that not to be the case. But how much of this is still rooted in that old political thinking?

BROOKS: Yes, it is true now that higher turnout benefits the Republicans, and lower turnout benefits the Democrats because they're more the party of the college-educated who vote in low-turnout elections. But what the Republicans are doing, they're playing on this pure electoral politics.

You might agree with the SAVE Act. You may disagree with the SAVE Act. It's hugely popular. You take every group in American society and you get 70 or 80 percent approval. It sounds decent to people that, if you can have to hand over your driver's license to get on an airplane, you should be able to have to hand it over to show you're voting. And there's some truth to that.

The problem is, it's not a problem. The studies that have been done looking at how many times U.S. noncitizensor the times noncitizens voted in U.S. elections, it's like fewer than 100 cases. in the last 25 years. 

This is not a problem. And the idea that we are going to paralyze the Senate for a solution looking for a problem, and the idea, especially egregious, that we're going to get rid of the filibuster, which to me is the only thing left that gives us a shred of hope of bipartisanship in the next few years, that just seems like a mistake.

In our view, that was a very limited answer, one which skirted the likely motivation behind this proposal. 

By the way, is it true that the SAVE Act is "hugely popular?" We'll guess that Voter ID is hugely popular, and that no one has the slightest idea what's actually in the SAVE Act.

That struck us as an empty exchange between Messrs. Bennett and Brooks. But then, the analysts screamedsome tore their hairwhen they saw Capehart say this:

BENNETT: Jonathan?

CAPEHART: The idea that you could have a law that says it's OKyou can prove that you're able to vote with, say, like a gun permit, but if you have a college I.D., you're not allowed to vote, or handing over voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security, for what purpose?

When I look at the SAVE Act, I look at it as an attempt by the president, who has made it very clear that he does not want Republicans to lose the 2026 midterms, and that is what this is all about.

BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, our thanks to you both, as always.

Good God! Over here in Blue America, there they went againor at least, so the analysts thought.

A few weeks back, we saw Rep. Ro Khanna make a similar statement about the SAVE Act when he made a surprising appearance on The Big Weekend Show. We were puzzled by his statement at the timebut then, three weeks later, this!

Let the question go forth to the nations! What do gun permits (or fishing licenses) have to do with the SAVE Act? Like Khanna before him, Capehart seemed to have reverted to a talking-point from battles pasta talking-point about being allowed to vote in Texas with a fishing license or a gun permit, but not with a college ID. 

Capehart's statement seemed like a residual talking-point about Voter ID in Texas. But how was it related to what the SAVE Act would require? 

We don't think we've ever seen so little effort devoted to the overall attempt to explain so consequential a proposal. So it goes, perhaps, with the flooding of the zone by a very unusual president, in which new battles break out on a round-the-clock basis, choking all other kudzu out. 

Friend, can you explain the contents of this consequential proposal? Can you explain how the SAVE Act actually works? 


BATTLES: The warfare is everywhere all at once!

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2026

Hollywood nails it again: At the start of last evening's Last Word, Lawrence O'Donnell returned to a familiar assessment. As you can see at the Last Word website, here's how his monologue started:

O'DONNELL (3/16/26): Well, Donald Trump has never been able to convincingly express sympathy or sorrow for anyone other than himself. That is the mark of a sociopath, of coursethe inability to feel sorry for someone.

Many sociopaths are capable of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" if someone in your family die, but they are incapable of actually feeling sorry for your loss. They just know they're supposed to say those wordsthose well-rehearsed words.

[...]

Last night, at 9:17 p.m., with the cameras rolling, Donald Trump's mind and feelings appeared to be in apparent sociopathic lockdown, possibly, when he was asked about the six Air Force personnel on a refueling plane that crashed in Donald Trump's new war zone.

And so on from there.

As we've noted in the past, the term "sociopath" isn't a clinical diagnostic term. It's a colloquial term which tends to be associated with a diagnosis of "antisocial personality disorder," a "mental disorder" which can apparently be diagnosed in something like 5-6 percent of adult American men.

(In fairness, the colloquial term may lose some of its punch when the apparent sociopathic lockdown only appears to possibly be in effect, as was the case last night.)

To his credit, O'Donnell is no stranger to this type of assessment. To see an unvarnished assessment from April 2020, you can just click here. For a return to the days when O'Donnell would occasionally interview medical specialists about the possibility in play here, you can just click this

O'Donnell used to go there! That sort of thing was permitted back then. Today, possibly not.

Today, he rarely offers that type of diagnosis. The change represents one of the problems Blue America has faced in trying to understand the behavior of the sitting president, who may (or may not) be afflicted with the various "psychopathologies" attributed to him by his niece, the clinical therapist, in her 2020 best-seller, Too Much and Never Enough. 

Quickly, we'll say it again! We're going to suggest that people gripped with a "mental illness" almost surely didn't choose to be so afflicteddidn't choose to be "mentally ill" (whatever that term means). 

That said, our society has a severely limited grasp of the conceptual complexities involved in the realm of "mental illness." That limitation has kept us from exploring one source of the many battles in which we Americans are currently involved. 

Lawrence O'Donnell is very sharp, and he's widely experienced. He spent one term of duty in Hollywoodand Sunday night, Tinseltown got it right all over again, as it so typically does. 

Last year's Best Picture, the academy said, was One Battle After Another, an "American black comedy action-thriller" which underperformed at the box office but managed to capture, right there in its title, the current state of play across the American landscape.

Hollywood rarely misses! At present, it's battles everywhere all at once in this, our clownishly troubled nationand a good deal of that fury comes from the sitting president. Today, in a front-page White House Memo, the New York Times' Peter Baker captures some of the fury which is generated, on an almost hourly basis, by the sitting commander in chief:

WHITE HOUSE MEMO
In Choosing ‘Epic Fury,’ Trump Names a War and Defines His Presidency

[...]

This is in a way the Anger Presidency. Anger defines Mr. Trump’s decade on the political stage. Anger at foreigners who come to this country and change its nature. Anger at allies who take advantage of America. Anger at Democrats who cross him. Anger at Republicans who cross him. Anger at appointees he deems insufficiently loyal. Anger at prosecutors, F.B.I. agents, judges, journalists, law firms, elite universities, cultural figures, corporate leaders, pollsters, central bankers and the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

His rally speeches, news conferences and social media feed are suffused with anger. In the past week, he attacked the “truly sick and demented people” in the news media, the “Radical Left Democrats,” the “Cognitive Mess” governor of California, a “COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER” Republican congressman from Kentucky and a “misfit” Harvard professor, not even counting the “deranged scumbags” in Iran.

Stewing over recent losses in court, he spent Sunday night posting a series of rambling rants assailing the “completely inept and embarrassing” Supreme Court, the “Deranged” former special counsel, the “absolutely terrible” chair of the Federal Reserve, the “grossly incompetent” former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., journalists who “should be brought up on Charges for TREASON” and “a Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and totally Out of Control Judge” who ruled against him. 

Is something "wrong" with this freaking guy? We've asked the question again and again. As part of our nation's current dilemma, Blue America has never managed to find a way to explore that fairly obvious question. 

Baker is a highly skilled synthesizer, but even he has only scratched the surface of the battles which rage, this very day, as the president with the possible problem which can't be named continues to storm on the moors.  

Over at Mediaite, headlines contain the word "rage" again and again and again. Meanwhile, in his White House Memo, Baker included this paragraph about a top Trump aide:

And White House officials, using official government accounts, seem to be in a pit-bull contest to be the nastiest on any given day, upbraiding anyone perceived to be an adversary: “Total hack and loser.” “Wrong again, numbnuts.” “A sad and pathetic excuse for a human being.” “An entitled prick.” “A known liar and fraud.” And that was just from one of them over just one week.

Needless to say, that unnamed official is Steven Cheung, the White House Communications Director. Sic semper "the several types of dog believed to have descended from bull and terriers," as someone most likely once said.

Red America has plenty to criticize about Blue America's performance over the past however many years. What we find strikingon Fox News Channel programs, for instanceis the inability to regulate anger, a shortcoming which is rarely far away inside Silo Red. 

The name-calling fury which spills from that silo has helped create the state of play in David French's new column for the Times:

"We Have Reached End-Stage Polarization," the headline on his column says. Of us battling Reds and Blues, the columnist says this:

"Both sides hate each other so much that it’s almost meaningless to ask who hates whom the most."

We're not sure we agree with that assessment. In the next few days, we'll show you one of the ways in which the members of one of our two major tribes are shoved along, night after night, toward something resembling hatred.

Last night, O'Donnell said "sociopath" again. We'd like to see him take that discussion further, with the anger and the battling possibly left behind.

Tomorrow: War without end, amen