Missing texts, meet missing transcripts!

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2022

Cable star, heal thyself: Lawrence O'Donnell is very upset about those missing Secret Service text messages. 

Lawrence has been ranting for several months about an array of topics. He's done this in several major situations where it would seem he can't possibly know what the facts actually are. 

In the past few nights, he's been ranting—and ranting hard—about those missing texts. You'd almost think, as you watch him rant, that he knows what he's talking about!

For ourselves, we don't know how many text messages are missing. We still can't say, with absolute certainty, that any texts are missing. 

Assuming that some texts are missing—perhaps a whole lot of texts—we can't say how that happened. Did 24 different Secret Service agents all fail to save their text messages? Or is it possible that some central authority saw to their erasure?

In short, we don't know what actually happened. At this point, neither does anyone else.

We can tell you this:

There's a certain irony involved in watching Lawrence complain about missing texts. We say that because of the missing transcripts which have been protecting Lawrence over the past several months. 

His corporate owner, MSNBC, has been slow-walking transcript production for a long time now. This very day, as we type, it's Thursday, July 21. But at MSNBC's transcript site, the most recent transcripts  involve the programs which aired on Thursday, June 30! 

Three weeks of transcripts are missing, for all MSNBC shows! This makes it very hard to discuss this corporate channel's relentlessly underfed work.

The motive behind this slow-walk procedure strikes us as fairly obvious. When the corporate owner delays transcript production for two or three weeks, it becomes much less likely that the channel's various crackpot performers will be subject to public criticism. 

It's hard to imagine some other reason for this slow-walk regime.

Lawrence O'Donnell is very upset about those missing texts. At this early point, he has no apparent way of knowing what actually happened in this matter, but he just keeps talking louder, and making wilder claims.

As he does, he hides behind his owner's slow-walk procedures.

A few weeks back, we couldn't discuss the way he seemed to be out over his skis concerning events in Uvalde. Today, it's hard to discuss the things he's been saying about this new point of concern.

Lawrence is very, very upset about the missing Secret Service texts. Meanwhile, his own transcripts are missing in action, and his corporate owners will keep it that way.

In our view, there were large volumes of low-grade work on last evening's Last Word. For now, though, we're going to leave it right here, in part because no record exists of what Lawrence and his guests said.

The One True Channel now plays it like that. In our view, problems abounded on last night's show. But due to last night's missing transcript, these problems are hard to discuss!

(For CNN's transcripts, click here.)


IDENTITY RULES: Blue tribe tribunes novelize hard!

THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2022

Our staff disagrees with Drum: We're so old that we can remember when Roxane Gay's recent guest essay seemed like a powerful tool for explaining the decline of our failed nation (such as that nation was).

Gay's essay appeared in Sunday's New York Times. In the several days since the essay appeared, it has been rendered obsolete by behaviors which are being seen all over blue tribe cable.

We refer to the behaviors of blue tribe stars with respect to the Secret Service. Yesterday afternoon, Kevin Drum offered a post about this matter—a post which carried this headline:

I think we all know what the Secret Service did last year

It's our impression that Drum is wrong on that particular point. In fact, we know he's wrong.

How do we know that Kevin is wrong? Simple:

At this site, we don't know what "the Secret Service" (or some element thereof) did with respect to the matters at hand! That said, blue tribe cable has spilled over, in the past few days, with a standard novelization concerning those events.

We've rarely seen a tribal novel emerge so quickly. Beyond that, we've rarely seen so many high-profile people making so little sense. 

The creation of this tribal novel has been a type of journalistic "Brooks Brothers riot." It reminds us of a basic anthropological fact:

Man [sic] is not "the rational animal." The claim is repeated again and again, but it's plainly false.

According to major anthropologists, we humans are actually the tribal animal. We're the animal which splits itself into warring tribes, then starts building tribal narratives—pleasing stories in which The Others are cartoonishly evil and wrong.

Gay, of course, was behaving that way in Sunday's guest essay. In our view, her essay helps explain why it has become so hard for Democrats to win elections—why our nation has already failed.

That said, the onset of The Great American Secret Service Novel has wiped Gay's guest essay away. It's all Secret Service now. It's all blue novelization.

Last night, we saw people saying things on cable which had to be seen to be believed. 

In the evening, the locus of such novelization is The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Early this morning, the process started again on Morning Joe.

The speculations—the novelizations—have been emerging thick and fast on these TV shows. We thought today of Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts ("Sentence first, verdict later"), but also of the increasingly crazy, hour-long plots which prevailed on 24, an earlier TV program.

Drum says we all know what happened. We're prepared to wait for the investigation of these events—for an investigation which may produce a reliable verdict.

Concerning where the novel now stands, we'll only tell you this:

At present, there seem to be two key parts to our blue tribe's emerging novel. How well do these narrative elements coexist? You can be the judge:

Elements of the blue novel:

Story Element 1: On January 6, Donald J. Trump wanted to go to the Capitol Building to join his violent followers, but his Secret Service agents refused to let him do so. After a physical altercation, they made him return to the White House.

(Note: As far as we know, that's what actually happened.)

Story Element 2: On January 6, Mike Pence's Secret Service agents wanted to whisk him away from the Capitol Building as it was under attack. They didn't want to do this as a way of assuring Pence's safety. They planned to refuse to let him return, thereby making it impossible for him to certify Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.

How well do those story elements hang together? Before answering, let us be clear:

The notion that Pence's agents were in on the plot is now standard issue on The Last Word, where Lawrence has increasingly acted like a nutcase over the past few months.

That notion has also become standard issue on Morning Joe. Indeed, all across cable's blue bayou, this notion is emerging as a truly remarkable part of the Standard Blue Tribe Storyline.

That said, were Pence's agents in on the plot? Were they planning to whisk him away from the Capitol, then refuse to let him return?

Everything is possible, just as it ever was! Pleasingly, a novelist can even imagine that Donald J. Trump had planned that move against Pence in his utterly crazy attempt to avoid accepting defeat.

We can imagine that Donald J. Trump was the mastermind of that scheme! But then we turn to Story Element 2, and all of a sudden it seems that this same Donald J. Trump actually wasn't the mastermind behind this fiendish novelized plan.

The silly children who service our tribe love to describe the way Donald J. Trump physically fought to go to the Capitol Building. But uh-oh! His Secret Service agents wouldn't allow it—and those agents prevailed.

This would seem to mean that someone other than Donald J. Trump was the actual mastermind behind this "fascist takeover." As in old 24 episodes, so too here:

Some shadowy figure was planning this thing—and Donald J. Trump was merely a pawn in that mastermind's game!

You can, of course, imagine this story a million different ways. You can novelize these events in whatever way you please.

At this site, we prefer to await the result of a competent probe. It may be that no such probe will ever take place—but almost surely, we'll eventually know more about the lack of Secret Service texts than we know at the present time.

As we wait, the American nation, such as it was, has basically ceased to exist. Gay's essay reflected this state of affairs, but so do the various crazy behaviors seen all over blue cable this week. And in all of this hubbub, one point emerges:

We humans are not "the rational animal." According to highly credentialed experts, we're the species which divides itself into warring tribes and then starts inventing tales.

In our experience, the failures of human rationality extend quite high up the ladder. For example, these failures extend to Einstein's transparently bungled attempt to explain "the relativity of simultaneity." 

(This doesn't mean that this part of Einstein's theory was wrong. It means that the explanation he aimed at general readers didn't make sense—and that no one has noticed this obvious fact over more than a hundred years.) 

These failures even leave us wondering if Godel's theorems make sense, even judged on their own terms. (We'll suggest that you start with "The Liar's Paradox," then take the found humor from there.)

Everything we know about this we started to learn as a college freshman! But make no mistake: You're seeing Pure Crazy on blue cable now, and this Crazy has no plan to stop.

What explains the apparent absence of text messages from those 24 Secret Service agents over the month-long period in question? 

At this point, we can't answer that question. By normal standards, no one else can do so either—except Carroll's Queen of Hearts!

This afternoon: The irony of Lawrence's stance? McCaskill's very strange statement?


What seem to be the actual facts...

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2022

...about those Secret Service texts? According to our contemporaneous notes, the yelling began at 6:21 A.M.

Joe Scarborough had already been ranting for a while, taking his "analysis" well beyond what he actually knew.  

But at or around 6:21, the yelling began. Regarding those Secret Service texts, the cable star ended up saying this:

"This is a cover-up of a fascist takeover of American democracy!"

As recorded by The Wrap, Joe's more extended analysis went exactly like this:

JOE (7/19/22): The people the taxpayers pay to protect the presidency—not Donald Trump, but the presidency—they destroyed text messages that would’ve taken us to the heart of the fascist conspiracy to overthrow American democracy. This isn’t a normal day at the office, Merrick. This isn’t a normal day at the office for the head of the DHS. This is a cover-up of a fascist takeover of American democracy.

Is this a cover-up of a fascist takeover of American democracy? Would the presumptive text messages in question have taken us to the heart of this fascist conspiracy? 

And if those texts really were destroyed, were they destroyed as part of a cover-up? Were they destroyed deliberately, for a nefarious purpose?

We don't know how to answer those questions. That said, saying it louder makes it more true in the world Morning Joe has helped make. 

Indeed, as we list the (many) systems which are breaking down as our political culture nears its end, the disintegration of our cable news stars—our people like this—would have to be part of the list.

Meanwhile, what are the actual facts concerning those Secret Service text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021? It's still hard to find a coherent account of where the facts currently stand, but CNN's Jamie Gangel has seemed to come up with a written source—and with a few basic facts.

To read Gangel's rather jumbled account, you can just click this. As she starts, she cites a source the New York Times and the Washington Post didn't seem to have access to as of this morning's editions:

GANGEL (7/20/22): The Secret Service was only able to provide a single text exchange to the DHS inspector general who had requested a month's worth of records for 24 Secret Service personnel, according to a letter to the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021, and obtained by CNN.

[...]

Inspector General Joseph Cuffari—having already received an initial batch of documents including "hundreds of thousands of disclosures of agency documents, policies, radio communications, emails, briefings and interviews"—requested in June 2021 text messages sent and received by 24 Secret Service personnel between December 7, 2020 and January 8, 2021, according to the letter, the details of which had not been previously reported. The letter does not identify the 24 personnel.

"The Secret Service submitted the responsive records it identified, namely, a text message conversation from former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to former Secret Service Uniformed Division Chief Thomas Sullivan requesting assistance on January 6, 2021, and advised the agency did not have any further records responsive to the DHS OIG's request for text messages," Assistant Director Ronald Rowe wrote in the letter to the January 6 committee.

For now, let's stop right there. 

According to Gangel, CNN has obtained a letter to the January 6 committee. As she continues, her jumbled prose makes it sound like the letter was written in the past few days, though she doesn't quite make that point clear.

She says the letter was written by Assistant Director Ronald Rowe, though she doesn't quite manage to say what agency the gentleman is assistant director of. That said, the letter obtained by CNN seems to include a few basic facts:

Way back in the beginning, Inspector General Cuffari was seeking text messages sent by 24 different Secret Service agents, over a roughly month-long period. Presumably, these were the agents who were protecting Donald J. Trump, and possibly Vice President Pence, during the period cited.

Beyond that, we'd say things still aren't completely clear. It sounds like the Secret Service couldn't locate any text messages from any of these 24 agents.

That said, we'd still be slow to assume that's accurate, given the murky exposition found throughout the mainstream press with respect to this matter. As we've read through various accounts, dangerous words like "some" and "new" just keep confusing the issue.

At any rate, it sounds like any and all text messages were lost, though we're still not entirely sure about that.  Of one thing, though, we are quite sure:

Our mainstream press corps is one of the entities which is falling apart as our failing (or failed) society continues to slide toward the sea. As Joe and Lawrence rant and yell, clear exposition of fact disappears. 

It's all Storyline / ranting now. It's lock-them-up all the way down.

We bark out an assignment: According to Cassidy Hutchinson, Bobby Engel was one of the Secret Service agents in the Suburban with Donald J. Trump on January 6.

Do any text messages survive from Engel? Has he been interviewed about this matter?

What did Bobby Engel text, and when did Engel text it? We'd like to see our multimillionaire cable "journalists" create a list of definable questions like that.

Instead, our tribunes rant and yell. His agents were going to drive Mike Pence away and lose him in Luray Caverns!

What's the story on the texts? It sounds like, out of 24 agents, zero text messages survive, over a month-long period. 

Is that the current state of the facts? We'd like to see a sober account. First, though, the children must yell.


IDENTITY RULES: You don't care (enough) about Brittney Griner!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2022

Roxane Gay knows why: Brittney Griner is a major star in the WNBA.

Or possibly, and horribly, she used to be such a star. On this very day, Griner is being held in a Russian prison—and she may be facing years in a Russian penal colony, unless some way can be found to free her from her plight.

Griner is facing a truly terrible plight. For the record, her plight has received a large amount of press attention, in both the political and the sports press. 

Just yesterday, to cite one example, we happened to see the last few minutes of Jalen & Jacoby, a daily half-hour discussion show on ESPN. At the end of the show, Jalen Rose asked viewers to remember Griner's plight.

He does this every day, Monday through Friday, as the program reaches its end.

ESPN is part of the world of sports, but Griner's plight has frequently been reported and mentioned in mainstream news sites too. This morning, though, her deeply unfortunate plight isn't on the front page of the New York Times.

On the typical morning, Griner's plight hasn't been on the front page of such major newspapers. Let's try to think of some of the reasons why this might be so.

First, a bit of background:

Griner was arrested at Sheremetyevo International Airport, a major airport serving Moscow, on February 17. She was arrested as she attempted to enter Russia to play in the Russian professional league.

An initial report about her arrest appeared on page A12 of the New York Times on March 5. To read that report, just click here.

Since that time, the Times has published dozens of news reports and / or opinion and analysis pieces about Griner's struggle within Mother Russia. In the month of July alone, you'll find links at this New York Times site to sixteen different articles about Griner. They feature such headlines as these:

July 2, 2022 
Brittney Griner’s Detention in Moscow Is Latest in Hostage Diplomacy
The United States believes the charges against the basketball star are spurious and tied to American support of Ukraine.
July 4, 2022
Brittney Griner to Biden: ‘I’m Terrified I Might Be Here Forever’

July 5, 2022
Brittney Griner’s wife says the White House is not doing enough to secure the basketball star’s release.

July 6, 2022
How Brittney Griner Became a Political Pawn
Growing public pressure to free the W.N.B.A. star, who has been detained in Russia for months, comes with risks.

July 6, 2022
Biden Speaks to Cherelle Griner About Her Wife’s Detention in Russia
President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris told Cherelle Griner they would pursue “every avenue” to bring her wife, Brittney Griner, home from Russia.
July 7, 2022
Brittney Griner Pleads Guilty to Drug Charges in Russian Court
“There was no intent,” the American basketball star told a Russian judge, as any resolution of the highly politicized case appeared to shift toward the diplomatic arena.

Those are just the Times' submissions for the first week in July. On July 8, the Times' report about Griner's guilty plea appeared on the front page of the newspaper's print editions. 

That said, Griner isn't on the front page today. And we're not sure how many times her plight has been afforded such prominent placement.

Brittney Griner's ongoing plight is deeply unfortunate. That said, it's very, very, very hard to say that her plight has been ignored by the mainstream press. Her plight has been widely covered elsewhere, not just in the New York Times.

That didn't stop the New York Times from publishing Roxane Gay's recent guest essay about the shameful way Griner's plight is being ignored, almost surely by people like you. 

Sure enough! Because Gay is deeply devoted to our blue tribe's current Storyline / Novelization frameworks, she offered the following thoughts right at the start of her essay. The Times chose to give this material prominent display in its Sunday Opinion section:

Brittney Griner Is Trapped and Alone. Where’s Your Outrage?

When unspeakable tragedies occur, people often call for unity. They’ll say, “We are Boston Strong” or “Je suis Charlie” or “We are [insert wherever or whomever the unthinkable has happened to].” It’s a laudable instinct to claim solidarity with those who have suffered, to imagine we truly understand the ways we are all connected, to proclaim that what affects one of us affects all of us.

With the W.N.B.A. star Brittney Griner wrongfully detained in Russia for more than four months because a small amount of hashish oil was allegedly found in her luggage, I’m wondering why we haven’t seen more of a groundswell of demands for her release. In the attention economy, Ms. Griner’s predicament seems as if it’s being somewhat ignored.

The media is, at least, covering the story, and some rights groups and athletes have spoken up, but that isn’t enough. More public pressure for action is necessary. “We are B.G.” should be a viral rallying cry, but it isn’t—and why? Is it misogyny? Racism? Homophobia? The unholy trifecta?

Gay is willing to note the fact that the media is covering the story. Inevitably, though, she says that isn't enough.

Bowing to the Identity Gods—working from the Identity Rules—Gay quickly asserts that You The Amerikan People aren't rallying around Griner with sufficient zeal. And by her third paragraph, needless to say, Gay is telling you why:

It must be your racism that explains your lack of interest! Either that, or it's your misogyny—or it may be your homophobia. 

You get to choose from those three sins. But by the end of paragraph 3, Gay has bowed low to the gods.

Brittney Griner deserves to be free of the terrible situation into which she's been thrown. At the same time, our rapidly failing Amerikan nation deserves to be free of the deeply unintelligent work of hopeless tribal adepts like Gay, and of hapless newspapers like Times which wave such work into print.

In fairness, the Identity Gods roared with approval when they read that third paragraph. Working from the Identity Rules, Roxane Gay had reminded Us The People about how deplorable we are.

Elsewhere, red tribe voters were gaining their wings as Roxane Gay, a good decent person, continued the deeply unintelligent conduct which now defines our rapidly failing tribe.

What makes people behave in such ways? Tomorrow, some experts explain.

Tomorrow: Like Jesus, logicians wept

Friday: Wat sacred Nietzsche once said


Did the Secret Service lose relevant texts?

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022

The Post's gorilla dust: Did the Secret Service lose / purge / delete text messages which would be relevant to the January 6 committee's probe of the Capitol riot?

This was the day we were supposed to find out. We've just read the Washington Post's first report on what has been learned, and we don't have the slightest idea what the Post's report is reporting.

Perhaps a clearer account will emerge. For now, we're thoroughly stumped. Here are some murky particulars in the report, as presented by Leonnig and Sacchetti:

We'll start with some basic background. Midway through their new report, the reporters describe what the Secret Service said last week:

LEONNIG AND SACCHETTI (7/19/22): Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi has said that the agency did not maliciously delete text messages and that the Secret Service had lost some data because of a previously planned agencywide replacement of staff telephones. The replacement began a month before the Office of Inspector General made his request, he said last week.

Guglielmi acknowledged that some data on the phones had been lost in the changeover but emphasized that “none of the texts” the OIG was seeking were missing.

According to Guglielmi's statement last week, the Secret Service did lose some data during the agency-wide replacement of telephones. However, he also said that none of the material that was missing was relevant to the January 6 probe.

(That's the type of material the Inspector General has been seeking.)

No relevant messages were lost. That was the agency's claim last week. Is the agency still making that claim today?

We've read the Post's report with care, and we can't exactly tell you. Starting with its headline, the Post's report may seem to make it sound that way. But after reading the report with care, we aren't exactly sure. 

More specifically:

Did agents working with Trump and Pence lose any text messages from the relevant dates? Presumably, that's the relevant question—and we can't see that the question has been answered in the Post's report. A fair amount of gorilla dust is perhaps creating "a haze which makes clear vision impossible," if we may quote the later Wittgenstein in a different context.

You can give it a try yourself. Warning! We advise you to read the Post's report with care.

Later, the facts may become more clear. For now, despite the Post's apparent best efforts, we remain unsure. So it goes in this, the most rational of all possible worlds.

Did relevant agents lose any texts? Even now, on Judgment Day, we still have no idea.

IDENTITY RULES: Roxane Gay's predictable stance...

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022

...calls sacred Nietzche to mind: Roxane Gay is a good decent person—so why did she write what she did?

On Sunday, she wrote a guest essay in the New York Times about the deeply unfortunate plight of basketball star Brittney Griner. 

Just so you can picture her, Brittney Griner is a woman, plus she's black and she's gay. Also, Griner is under arrest in Russia, where she plays basketball—where she used to play basketball—during the WNBA's off-season. 

She has confessed to the unwitting commission of a fairly minor crime—and she may be looking ahead to years in a Russian penal colony.

Griner is facing a terrible plight—but she isn't exactly alone. According to Gay's essay, there are "reportedly more than 60 Americans who are wrongfully detained abroad." 

Griner's case "is receiving more attention than most," Gay wrote in paragraph 4, "but that’s not saying much." And yet, for reasons which our tribes badly needs to consider, Gay started her essay as shown, headline included:

GAY (7/17/22): Brittney Griner Is Trapped and Alone. Where’s Your Outrage?

When unspeakable tragedies occur, people often call for unity. They’ll say, “We are Boston Strong” or “Je suis Charlie” or “We are [insert wherever or whomever the unthinkable has happened to].” It’s a laudable instinct to claim solidarity with those who have suffered, to imagine we truly understand the ways we are all connected, to proclaim that what affects one of us affects all of us.

With the W.N.B.A. star Brittney Griner wrongfully detained in Russia for more than four months because a small amount of hashish oil was allegedly found in her luggage, I’m wondering why we haven’t seen more of a groundswell of demands for her release. In the attention economy, Ms. Griner’s predicament seems as if it’s being somewhat ignored.

The media is, at least, covering the story, and some rights groups and athletes have spoken up, but that isn’t enough. More public pressure for action is necessary. “We are B.G.” should be a viral rallying cry, but it isn’t—and why? Is it misogyny? Racism? Homophobia? The unholy trifecta?

Gay wonders why Griner's plight isn't receiving more attention—why various people aren't showing more outrage about her terrible plight. 

Before she tells us anything more, Gay hits us with three tribally mandated possible explanations. It could be our misogyny, she says. Or it could be our racism. Or maybe our homophobia!

As we'll remind you below, this presentation doesn't seem to make sense. Meanwhile, Roxane Gay is a good decent person—so why would she structure as essay like this? 

Also, why would the geniuses at the New York Times publish an essay like this? Before we take another step, let's try to get clear on the lack of logic:

According to Gay, at least sixty people are wrong fully detained abroad, much as Griner is. Also according to Gay, Griner's case "is receiving more attention than most" of these other cases. 

In fact, that's a giant understatement. Griner's case is receiving vastly more attention than these other cases. The odds are very good that you can't even cite the name of any of these other unfortunate people.

Sixty others are being detained; Griner's case is receiving more attention than these other cases. But then again, so what?

Before she even notes these facts, Gay unloads a trio of familiar tribal bombs. If not for our racism / misogyny / homophobia, the outrage about Griner's case would be much more strong!

On its face, that doesn't make sense. If you can't spot the illogic there, there's no way we can help you.

("Explanations [must] come to an end somewhere." So the later Wittgenstein instantly wrote, in a different context.) 

On its face, Gay's presentation doesn't make sense. But if it doesn't make logical sense, it does fulfill well-known tribal mandates. It makes 100 percent perfect sense in terms of our modern tribe's controlling Identity Rules.

By now, we all know what these mandates are. In the end, however well-intended our subsequent behaviors might be, they're ugly and stupid and wrong.

They're also deeply self-defeating. Our highly self-impressed blue tribe is steadily sinking beneath the sea as we let our assistant, associate and adjunct professors push this dumb culture along.

Gay bowed to our identity gods before she stated the most basic facts. She was observing the mandated identity rules which form the increasingly noxious fuel by which our failing tribe runs:

Before we mention anything else, we're required to drop our R-bombs. Gay threw in an M-bomb and an H-bomb to complete a truly "unholy trifecta."

The gods of identity say we must do this. Gay complied with their edicts, and the New York Times waved her work on.

On its face, her presentation doesn't make sense, but that's only in the logical realm. By the rules which now govern our tribe, no other approach could be offered.

We love to drop our identity bombs, fulfilling our the identity rules which come from our tribal gods. Increasingly, quite a few Others shun our tribe for this incessant behavior:

Can anyone say that they're wrong?

Tomorrow: Gay made us think of Robert Fulghum—but mainly of sacred Nietzsche


Our own tribe, in service to scandal!

MONDAY, JULY 18, 2022

Secret Service steals Pence: We wish we could show you what Jonathan Lemire said about Mike Pence and the Secret Service.

The sidekick said it this very morning, during Morning Joe's first half hour. The program's producers didn't post the videotape, so let's just put it this way:

Like Harry Litman before him, Lemire seemed to be trying to create the appearance of yet another scandal. To our ear, he seemed to be trying to semi-suggest that Pence's Secret Service agents may have been in the plot on January 6—that Pence had to foil their plans.

That said, insinuations are everywhere at tribalized times like these. Here's what Benjamin  Hart has said today at New York Magazine's Intelligencer site:

HART (7/18/22): The role of the Secret Service in the events of January 6 has come to the fore in recent testimony before the January 6 Committee. Star witness Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Tony Ornato, then a deputy White House chief of staff and previously the head of former president Trump’s security detail, told her that Trump was so upset that he couldn’t go to the Capitol on January 6 that he attempted to grab the steering wheel of a Secret Service vehicle. After Hutchinson’s testimony, anonymous sources disputed that Ornato had ever related such a story, but his status as a Trump loyalist raised skepticism about his credibility.

The committee has also detailed how Secret Service agents wanted to whisk former vice-president Mike Pence away from the violence at the Capitol on January 6, which would have prevented him from certifying the presidential vote. Pence refused to go.

So cool, and so exciting! Pence's agents "wanted to whisk [him] away from the violence at the Capitol on January 6." This "would have prevented him from certifying the presidential vote."

So cool! Of course, this would have "prevented him from certifying the vote" only until he was whisked back to the Capitol after the riot was over.  Surely, we all can grasp this blindingly obvious fact.

Everything is always possible, but no serious person has ever cited any evidence suggesting that Pence's agents were in on the plot. That said, so what?  

At times like these, the gods of Insinuation flood the earth with thrilling tribal dreams. These dreams are conveyed to a waiting world by people like Litman, Lemire and Hart.  At present, a certain suggestion is taking shape as these dreams come forth.

It's hard to believe that we rational animals actually function this way. It's hard to believe that we function this way, but legions of disconsolate major experts all insist that we do!

Fuller disclosure: Remember, it's all anthropology now. According to experts, any hope of a sensible outcome vanished long ago. The goddess Athena's dream at the end of the The Odyssey has turned to dust once more!


STARTING TOMORROW: Identity Rules!

MONDAY, JULY 18, 2022

Roxane Gay's sacred text: Brittney Griner is an American professional basketball player.

For the past four months, Griner has been under arrest in Russia. (She plays in the Russian professional league during the WNBA's off-season.) She has pleaded guilty to the crime of (unwittingly) bringing a small amount of hashish oil, an illegal substance, into Mother Russia.

Griner faces possible years of detention in a Russian penal colony. Yesterday, in the Sunday New York Times, Roxane Gay wrote a guest essay about this matter. 

Gay feels that we the people are gripped by a lack of outrage about the treatment of Griner. She offers a familiar explanation for our lack of concern—for our nation's bad behavior.

Gay scolds "us" in a fully predictable way. In these latter days, our blue tribe tribunes perform this sort of task in their sleep.

Roxane Gay starts her essay by name-calling us the people. Challenging headline included, her essay started like this:

Brittney Griner Is Trapped and Alone. Where’s Your Outrage?

When unspeakable tragedies occur, people often call for unity. They’ll say, “We are Boston Strong” or “Je suis Charlie” or “We are [insert wherever or whomever the unthinkable has happened to].” It’s a laudable instinct to claim solidarity with those who have suffered, to imagine we truly understand the ways we are all connected, to proclaim that what affects one of us affects all of us.

With the W.N.B.A. star Brittney Griner wrongfully detained in Russia for more than four months because a small amount of hashish oil was allegedly found in her luggage, I’m wondering why we haven’t seen more of a groundswell of demands for her release. In the attention economy, Ms. Griner’s predicament seems as if it’s being somewhat ignored.

The media is, at least, covering the story, and some rights groups and athletes have spoken up, but that isn’t enough. More public pressure for action is necessary. “We are B.G.” should be a viral rallying cry, but it isn’t—and why? Is it misogyny? Racism? Homophobia? The unholy trifecta?

Where's the outrage, Gay asks. And sure enough—by the end of paragraph 3, she has named an "unholy trifecta" as she pretends to explain why we don't seem to care. 

Viewed a slightly different was, Gay was citing a holy trinity—the  gods to whom our flailing blue tribe now stands in complete total thrall.

Why aren't we the people displaying more outrage about Griner's plight? Within our highly self-impressed tribe, only three possibilities exist:

It could be our misogyny which has caused this shortfall of outrage. Or it could be our racism—or  our homophobia could be the cause!

Lat's state this matter a simpler way. By rule of law—by sacred fiat—we the Amerikan people are all "the deplorables" now. 

This is a matter of sacred law. It's the way our failing tribe plays.

Brittney Griner is a woman; she's also black and gay. By the sacred writ which now controls the conduct of our failing tribe, those alleged facts explain the alleged lack of outrage concerning Griner's deeply substantial plight.

It has to be our misogyny and homophobia. It's our racism, ourselves! But then we get to paragraph 4, and Gay is allowed by the New York Times to cite an additional fact: 

GAY (continuing directly): Ms. Griner pleaded guilty to drug charges, but explained she did not intentionally break Russian law. Now she faces up to 10 years in a penal colony. She is trapped and alone, her plight unimaginable. There are, in fact, reportedly more than 60 Americans who are wrongfully detained abroad, all wondering when or if they will be saved. They have families who are working tirelessly for their return. They all deserve our compassion and attention.

Ms. Griner is receiving more attention than most, but that’s not saying much...

Our blue tribe is famously self-impressed. But as we bow to our tribe's current gods, we're also increasingly illogical—and the agents of our own defeat.

Uh-oh! As Gay notes in paragraph 4—as she understood all along—Griner isn't the only American "wrongfully detained abroad!" 

According to Gay, there are more than sixty other people in this unfortunate circumstance. And Griner's case is "receiving more attention"—in fact, it's receiving much more attention—than the other cases  involving those other unfortunate souls.

Griner's case is receiving attention; the other sixty are not. Why then did Gay assail our racism and our misogyny before she noted this point?

The answer to that is clear. By now, the Identity Gods are the only gods of our dumb, self-destructive tribe. Our tribe bows low to their jealous demands. People like Gay behave as adepts have always behaved, all through the annals of time.

The dicta of the Identify Gods have taken control of our tribe. This leads us to make illogical statements, to take counterproductive steps.

The ugly illogic of Gay's presentation is surely apparent to all. Indeed, it's so clear that you'd almost think that a New York Times editor would have been able to spot it.

If you thought that, you misunderstand the era to which we've all been condemned. In the hands of people like Gay, it has become an act of sacred law:

In every case, "we" must be assailed, right at the jump, for our misogyny / racism / homophobia.  After that, adepts like Gay may allow brief exposure to one or two actual facts.

Tomorrow: The unyielding soul of the adept


Thompson issued a responsible statement!

SATURDAY, JULY 16, 2022

On cable, Litman didn't: Has the Secret Service done something wrong?

As we noted yesterday, we have no idea.

An Inspector General has made one set of factual claims. On Thursday evening, the Secret Service responded with a contradictory set of assertions.

Just for starters, whose factual statements are accurate? At this point, we have no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else.

Yesterday, Bennie Thompson offered a brief but responsible summary of the dueling factual claims. Online at the Washington Post, Alemany and Sacchetti quote Rep. Thompson's statement at the start of this news report:

ALEMANY AND SACCHETTI (7/15/22): The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol issued a subpoena to the U.S. Secret Service on Friday requesting records after a government watchdog accused the agency of erasing texts from Jan. 5 and 6 after his office requested them.

Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), in a letter transmitting notice of the subpoena, wrote that the panel sought relevant text messages and reports issued in any way related to the attack on the Capitol.

“The Select Committee has been informed that the USSS erased text messages from Jan. 5 and 6, 2021 as part of a ‘device-replacement program.’ In a statement issued July 14, 2022, the USSS stated that it ‘began to reset its mobile phones to factory settings as part of a pre-planned, three-month system migration. In that process, data resident on some phones was lost.’ However, according to that USSS statement, ‘none of the texts [the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General] was seeking had been lost in the migration,” Thompson wrote.

Interesting! According to the Secret Service, the agency hasn't lost any of the text messages the Inspector General has sought.

Is that statement accurate? We have no idea. But it was a key part of the statement the Secret Service released on Thursday night. 

On Thursday night, Lawrence read the full statement on the air. He then began ignoring the parts of the statement which challenged the Inspector General's more pleasing claims. 

Performing one of his famous rants, he just kept pushing The Pleasing Story Our Blue Tribe Would Most Like To Hear. Sadly, that's pretty much what Harry Litman continued to do on last evening's Last Word program.

Last night, Jonathan Capehart was sitting in for Lawrence, who tends to take Fridays off. Here's the start of the relevant exchange with Litman:

CAPEHART (7/15/22): Congressman Jamie Raskin said today that the committee intends to get to the bottom of those deleted Secret Service text messages from January 5 and January 6. Do you buy the agency's explanation that this was simply part of a planned technology upgrade?

LITMAN: Look, who knows? And especially, this upgrade occurred after they were already notified not to do it. It doesn't—it certainly has an odor about it.

Briefly, Litman seemed to say that he didn't know. Then, he began to suggest that he did. 

"The upgrade occurred after [the Secret Service] was already notified not to do it," the cable news tribune said. "It certainly has an odor about it," he pleasingly added.

Gruesome! In fact, did the upgrade occur after the Secret Service was already notified about it?

So said Litman—but at present, that is merely one of the things the Inspector General has alleged. In its statement on Thursday night, the Secret Service flatly contradicted that claim, listing what it said was the actual date on which the Inspector General first made his request.

On Thursday, Lawrence read that statement on the air, then began ignoring the claims it contained. In his very first remarks, Litman continued this process:

He repeated the Inspector General's disputed claim as if it was an established fact, then said he detected an odor. We detected the hint of an odor at this juncture too.

Stating the obvious, Capehart should have clarified this part of Litman's statement, but cable news hosts don't do that. In fairness, we have no idea whether either one of these cable news stars was familiar with the facts of the case as they currently stand. 

For all we know, Litman may have thought he was presenting an established fact, rather than a disputed claim. Capehart may have been similarly underinformed. 

(Since when do we expect "cable news" hosts to know what they're talking about?)

Litman continued on from there, telling a type of story our tribe would be inclined to like. Astoundingly, he even said that Mike Pence may have thought the Secret Service was in on Donald J. Trump's plot when they tried to drive him out of the Capitol Building as it was under attack. 

We've never seen anyone make any such suggestion. That includes the two high-ranking Pence associates who testified at great length before the January 6 committee.

No one has said that Vice President Pence thought his own Secret Service agents might have been part of the plot. Last night, without a peep from the hapless Capehart, Litman introduced that stunning unsourced speculation.

At one point, Litman made an interesting statement. "The [Inspector General] here has a history of being kind of squirrely himself," he fleetingly said at one point.

As we noted yesterday, that state of affairs had been described in a Washington Post report. Litman's apparent awareness of the IG's squirrely ways didn't stop him from presenting a bowdlerized account of the facts, including the remarkable suggestion that Pence may have thought his Secret Service agents were part of the TrumpWorld plot.

In a better world, a producer would have emerged from the wings and dragged Litman off the air. After that, the producer would have come back for Capehart.

We don't live in that kind of world! Our nation—such as it is, such as it has been—is nearing its end in the process.

Rep. Thompson issued a responsible statement. In particular, he called attention to the fact that the Inspector General and the Secret Service have issued dueling factual claims about the matter at hand.

Thompson didn't claim to know whose factual claims were accurate. That represents the kind of stance a responsible person would take.

On Thursday night, by way of contrast, Lawrence went full screaming conspiracy mode. Then on the fifth evening he rested. 

On Friday night, Litman added to the distorted presentation, and Capehart politely deferred.

This is the way our own blue tribe's "cable news" programming works. They may be even worse at Fox, but our own gaggle of jugglers and clowns has been catching up.

Full disclosure: Because MSNBC slow-walks its production of transcripts and tapes, we can't link you to a full account of the various things Litman said.

We could transcribe the whole thing ourselves. But we've been doing such things for decades, and the time has come to stop.


The Washington Post adds a soupcon of doubt!

FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2022

Lawrence / Joe / Mika seemed sure: Last evening, Lawrence was totally sure.

He opened his show with one of his rants. The Secret Service had conducted a fraud! One of the largest ever!

Eight hours later, Joe and Mika were also sure—and Willie chimed in too. The Secret Service was in the wrong. The Inspector General was right!

(To see how sure Joe and Mika were, you can just click here. Then, click on "Somebody's Lying.")

As they displayed the certainty of their rants, none of these people actually knew what had actually happened. There was no possible way they could know. They were simply providing our failing blue tribe with the story our tribe would like.

And then, later this morning, it happened! The Washington Post came along with this report, casting a rather large shadow of doubt on the Inspector General:

SACCHETTI AND LEONNIG (7/15/22): Cuffari, nominated by Trump in 2019 and confirmed by the Senate, has faced significant criticism since he took over the office. His first-year audits plummeted to historic lows, he clashed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the veracity of an inspection of a detention center, and he blocked investigations into the Secret Service’s handling of George Floyd protests in Lafayette Square and the spread of the coronavirus in its ranks, documents show.

The OIG’s office is under investigation by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an independent entity in the executive branch, for undisclosed allegations of misconduct, according to an internal email circulated to the office in January.

The nonprofit Project On Government Oversight (POGO), an independent watchdog, has called on President Biden to remove Cuffari.

Cuffari’s office did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday, and DHS had no immediate comment on his allegations.

A person briefed on the Secret Service’s reaction to Cuffari’s letter said the agency rejects his characterizations that they eliminated or deleted records after Cuffari’s office requested them.

The report goes on from there. As you know, Leonnig is Carol Leonnig. She literally wrote the book on the Secret Service, though she isn't the gang's best friend. 

This morning's report in the Washington Post makes the (Trump-appointed) IG sound a little bit shaky. Is it possible that, in this instance, it's the IG who's basically wrong?

For ourselves, we don't have the slightest idea how this matter will turn out. That, of course, is the obvious point. The same was true of Lawrence last night, and of Joe and Mika this morning.

These instantly scripted tribal performers were serving Mikey his Maypo. Whatever their motives or thinking might be, they were instantly handing our floundering tribe the story our tribe would like.

It's almost always pure Storyline now, even on our own cable channels. Again and again and again and again, it's mandated preconceived Storyline pretty much all the way down.

We don't know who's right or who's wrong in this case. That, of course, is precisely the point:

We don't know who's right and who's wrong. But neither did Lawrence, Joe, Mika!

Full disclosure: Almost surely, MSNBC slow-walks its transcript production to prevent fuller discussion of modern "journalism" of this unfortunate type. 

Even as we type this report, the most recent transcript of Lawrence's show dates from Thursday, June 30. For such tired old transcripts, you can just click here

This is the way the game is played, business division-wise.


The Crazy came for our thought leaders too!

FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2022

We were too soft to push back: How crazy was American upper-end journalism as of 1999?

To what extent had The Crazy extended its reach into the world of our own blue tribe? To what extent had The Crazy invaded our own tribe's culture—and thereby our national culture—without our admittedly brilliant tribunes saying so much as a word?

By the time that President Donald J. Trump was offering thoughts about how to fight Covid with Lysol, our slumbering tribe had begun to notice the role The Crazy was playing in our lives. But how far had the Crazy's reach extended back when the press corps was partying like it was 1999? 

How far had the Crazy's reach extended? We offer such comments by the upper-end press as the comments shown below—a tiny sampling of the full roster of The Crazy which was rolled out that year. 

These comments were made by highly-paid members of the upper-end, blue tribe mainstream press corps. We'll start with Mary McGrory, a Pulitzer-winning, long-time pillar of the insider press corps establishment. 

In late October 1999. Candidates Gore and Bradley staged the first Democratic debate of the 2000 White House campaign. The debate was broadcast by CNN. The candidates principally spoke about health care—and the upper-end press corps said this:

MCGRORY (10/31/99): Vice President Albert Gore came to his fateful encounter with newly menacing challenger Bill Bradley carrying heavy baggage. He was wearing an outfit that added to his problems when he stepped onstage at Dartmouth College: a brown suit, a gunmetal blue shirt, a red tie—and black boots.

Was it part of his reinvention strategy? Perhaps it was meant to be a ground-leveling statement—"I am not a well-dressed man." It is hard to imagine that he thought to ingratiate himself with the nation's earliest primary voters by trying to look like someone seeking employment at a country music radio station. Maybe it was the first step in shedding his Prince Albert image.

A hail of similar insults followed. Already, The Crazy was saddling us with "journalism" like that. 

McGrory avoided the health care discussion in this and in her subsequent column. Our own blue tribe's demented thought leaders said nothing about this lack of focus. They simply sat and stared.

In fact, it isn't true that our leaders said nothing. In fact, our tribe's thought leaders were pouring it on. 

By now, our tribe's thought leaders had been assailing Candidate Gore's disturbing wardrobe for roughly a month. Every part of the candidate's wardrobe was frisked by these subhuman creatures. This let the occasional sane observer see a blinfingly obvious fact:

The Crazy already prevailed.

The candidate was attacked for his suits, his boots, his polo shirts—for the height at which he was hemming his pants. He was assailed for the color of his suits, but also for the number of buttons observed on his suit jackets.

The candidate had actually worn one or more three-button suits! A crazy employee of NBC News described this offense against decency on his nightly NBC cable news program as he questioned a "body language" expert:

MATTHEWS (11/12/99): You know, there's been a lot of talk about the new costuming of Al Gore. You know, he used to wear blue suits like I do, or gray suits. Now he's wearing these new olive suits. He's taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. 

I always– My joke is, “I'm Albert, I'll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don't know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons?

DIMITRIUS: Well, I, I think that–

MATTHEWS: Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don't know. I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don't know what it means. Go ahead.

For the record, Matthews was smuttily employing a theme which had come to dominate the story-telling of the upper-end mainstream press—the notion that Gore's wardrobe somehow represented a fiendish, sexualized attempt to attract female voters. 

To her credit, Jo-Ellen Dimitrius seemed puzzled by the lunacy of Chris Matthews' insinuations and questions. After some initial fumbling, she took a diplomatic approach to the problem, suggesting that Gore might understand that “olive green, dark green is much more approachable” than dark blue in a man’s suit. 

“Is that why Peter Pan wore green?” Matthews quickly and crazily asked. As Dimitrius fumbled again for an answer, her host finally asked a relevant question:

“How does my mind work that way?” he asked his puzzled guest.

Whatever the answer may have been, Matthews’ mind kept “working that way” all through the month of November. He raised the topic of Gore’s disturbing three-button suits on half a dozen Hardball programs, running through November 24. 

On five of these occasions, Matthews said the three-button suits made Gore look like a waiter. He told his “I’m Albert, I’ll be your waiter” joke on three different programs. 

Nor was Matthews the only major figure counting the number of buttons on Gore’s deeply troubling suits. On November 9, Arianna Huffington clownishly attacked the candidate for wearing four-button suits!

In fact, Gore hadn’t worn any four-button suits. Huffington had simply added a button, making her unadulterated nonsense stand out from the rapidly growing pack.

“The way he's now dressing makes a lot of people feel disconnected from him,” she told a panel of pundits on Geraldo Rivera’s nightly CNBC show, after miscounting the buttons. (Rivera's was one of the rare cable shows of the era whose host was defending Bill Clinton in the wake of his impeachment.)

Gore hadn’t worn any four-button suits. That just made the story sound better. 

Meanwhile, concerning the crazy claim that “the way [Gore was] now dressing makes a lot of people feel disconnected from him,” let it be said that Gore went on to win the New Hampshire primary and every other Democratic primary in that election cycle. (No other Democrat had ever won every contested primary.)

Apparently. Democratic voters hadn't felt quite as "disconnected" from Gore as Huffington had imagined. Nor was Huffington the only major observer who gave voice to such crazy thoughts about the way Gore's troubling suits were being viewed by the public.

On Sunday, November 28, the Washington Post's Marc Fisher went down this same path in a crazy profile of Gore in the newspaper's Sunday magazine. Fisher linked a viciously misogynist sets of attacks on a female adviser to Gore with a similar lunatic claim about the troubling suit Gore had worn at that first Democratic debate.

Fisher added a widespread claim his guild had adopted from the annals of pop psychology“—the endlessly-repeated claim that Candidate Gore "doesn't know who he is."

Had the candidate been duped by aides? Fisher asked. If not, he wasn't "fit to be president:"

FISHER (11/28/99): We have two choices: We can say Gore's a good man who's been duped by over-eager aides, or we can say this is a man who does not know himself, a man who is unknowable, unreadable and therefore not fit to be president.

A person who makes her living by writing pop philosophy about sex tells a man who would be president of the United States that he must be a different kind of man, that he must be more assertive, that he must wear a brown suit of a sort that is alien to virtually every American. And he says, "Okay."

To call him unreadable is to be charitable.

That was the end of Fisher's profile. According to Fisher, Gore had been wearing a brown suit "of a sort that was alien to virtually every American."

Fisher's statement about Gore's suit came live and direct from The Crazy. To this day, he writes lengthy, front-page pieces for the Washington Post.

It's impossible to fully convey the extent to which The Crazy had invaded our upper end (mainstream) press corps by this point in time. This manifest lunacy about Gore's wardrobe went on and on, then on and on, all through the mainstream press. 

On NBC cable, Brian Williams writhed and railed, night after night, about the way Gore was costuming himself in a way designed to woo female voters. No other journalist said a word about the manifest lunacy driving this onslaught. Already, The Crazy was in the saddle and was riding upper-end humankind.

We're sparing you the transcript of Chris Matthews' half-hour interview with Gennifer Flowers in August 1999. At that time, Flowers was offering a for-profit website devoted to recitations concerning Bill and Hillary Clinton's many murders.

Matthews went on and on, in embarrassing ways, about what a stone-cold super-babe Flowers so plainly was, especially compared to Hillary Clinton. Along the way, Flowers' performance with Matthews was so crazy that she was gifted with a full hour on Fox to discuss the Clintons' murders. 

She got the full hour on Hannity & Colmes, but she'd broken through on NBC cable. Before this lunacy jumped to Fox, our own blue tribe was performing a rendezvous with The Crazy.

It took our tribe a very long time to see that The Crazy surrounds us. This week, we've ended up with the Jill Biden breakfast tacos "scandal"—and truly, you simply can't get any dumber than to see a scandal in that.

Is there a way out of this mess? In this morning's New York Times, David Brooks sees a (possible) bad moon rising:

BROOKS (7/15/22): I’d like you to consider the possibility that the political changes that have rocked this country over the past six years will be nothing compared with the changes that will rock it over the next six. I’d like you to consider the possibility that we’re in some sort of prerevolutionary period—the kind of moment that often gives birth to something shocking and new.

Brooks poses the possibility that "the political changes that have rocked this country over the past six years will be nothing compared with the changes that will rock it over the next six." 

He considers the possibility that "we’re in some sort of prerevolutionary period—the kind of moment that often gives birth to something shocking and new."

Long ago and far away, classicist Norman O. Brown already said that he saw that coming. Among liberal intellectuals, Brown was very hot at the time. The year was 1966, and Norman O. Brown said this:

BROWN (1966): I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

Brown made those remarks in a Phi Beta Kappa address. We can't say we know exactly what he was talking about, but as our society breaks down around us, we highly self-impressed blue tribe members should remember this:

The Crazy came for us and our "thought leaders" too! This was abundantly clear by the late 1990s.

By the late 1990s, The Crazy was in the saddle among the people we're taught to respect. Our own allegedly brilliant blue tribe was simply too clueless to see this.

Maybe tomorrow: Jill Biden

Special bonus coverage: In the fall of 1999, the clothing campaign took many forms as journalists pounded away at Gore’s deeply troubling character through the medium of his wardrobe.

Example: 

Amid the various crazy claims concerning the candidate’s boots and suits, Brian Williams was treating himself to a small nervous breakdown concerning Gore’s polo shirts.

Candidates had campaigned in casual clothing for years, but Williams was suddenly troubled. Gore was “wearing polo shirts twenty-four hours a day,” the anchor groused on October 6, on his nightly "cable news" program. 

The polo shirts “don’t always look natural on him,” he weirdly complained two nights later. 

For whatever reason, Williams said Gore was wearing the polo shirts in an effort to attract female voters. The anchor repeatedly stated this theory, asking guests when Gore’s strategy would “all start becoming so transparent [that] no one is fooled” (October 6) or (October 8) whether the strategy was going to “become absolutely transparent when they go out into the hinterlands and try to sell it.” 

On and on the grumbling went. Incredibly, Williams raised the question of Gore’s polo shirts on five separate programs in one eight-day period, with two nights off for weekend rehab. 

Williams continued this stupid behavior into the next year. The Crazy was part of our national life. We liberals were simply too dumb to notice, too supine to push back.

This conduct by the upper-end press sent George W. Bush to the Oval Office, Alito to the Supreme Court. No one has ever discussed this obvious fact, and no one ever will.

The Crazy came for us long ago. Is there any hope of escape in (let's say) the next six years?


"If history has taught us anything..."

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2022

...it doesn't seem to have taught us this: "If history has taught us anything," Al Pacino once famously said.

Pretending to be a mob boss, he continued his famous statement. With apologies for the ugliness of the sentiment he expressed, here is the fuller quotation, straight from The Godfather 2:

“If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone."

We apologize for the sentiment Pacino expressed. That said, we disagree with his assessment of the one thing we've been taught.

Has history taught us any one thing? Almost surely not. But if we were to nominate a candidate for this honor, we would nominate this:

If history has taught us anything, it is that it's very hard to hold a large continental nation (or empire) together.

Genghis Khan "united the tribes." His empire came apart. 

Years later, the Soviet Union came apart too, as quite a few others had done.

Given the way our globe's many tribes disagree about cultural matters—and given the way we tend to recoil against Others—it seems to be extremely hard to hold large empires together.

It's also hard to hold a large nation together. That's especially true in a world whose technologies have helped create such communication platforms as these:

Modern formats:
Local and national talk radio programs
Politically partisan "cable news" channels
The million sites of the Internet
And, of course, social media

A sprawling nation with those communication formats may find it hard to survive. It seems to us that, if contemporary history is teaching us anything, it may be trying to teach us that.

These thoughts have repeatedly come to mind this week. Tomorrow, we'll return to the recent hubbub about Jill Biden and the tacos—an incident which shows one of the ways our own blue tribe tends to split nations apart.

For today, we'll look at a couple of headlines from the New York Times. But history seems to be teaching us this:

In the modern context, it's very hard for large nations like ours to survive.

We start on the macro level, with headlines from a dispiriting report in the New York Times. When different tribes within a nation are exposed to vastly different statements of fact, results like these may well result—and large nations can fall apart:

As Faith Flags in U.S. Government, Many Voters Want to Upend the System
Desire for structural changes cuts across both parties, a Times/Siena College poll found, but for starkly different reasons. Even Democrats now question if the government is a force for good.

Faith in government is flagging from sea to shining sea! Reid Epstein's report starts like this:

EPSTEIN (7/14/22): A majority of American voters across nearly all demographics and ideologies believe their system of government does not work, with 58 percent of those interviewed for a New York Times/Siena College poll saying that the world’s oldest independent constitutional democracy needs major reforms or a complete overhaul.

The discontent among Republicans is driven by their widespread, unfounded doubts about the legitimacy of the nation’s elections. For Democrats, it is the realization that even though they control the White House and Congress, it is Republicans, joined with their allies in gerrymandered state legislatures and the Supreme Court, who are achieving long-sought political goals.

For Republicans, the distrust is a natural outgrowth of former President Donald J. Trump’s domination of the party and, to a large degree, American politics. After seven years in which he relentlessly attacked the country’s institutions, a broad majority of Republicans share his views on the 2020 election and its aftermath: Sixty-one percent said he was the legitimate winner...

Majorities in both major parties think the political system is failing. Troublingly, the two groups tend to have completely different ideas concerning what has gone wrong.

Republicans think the last election was rigged. No evidence to that effect has ever been presented, but Donald J. Trump just keeps making the claim, and it doesn't seem to occur to these voters that his claims are unfounded and unsupported and, for that blindingly obvious reason, should be assumed to be wrong.

Trump has never offered evidence in support of his claims! Twenty months have passed since the election occurred. No white paper has appeared.

Voters who believe in Trump don't seem to notice this fact, and our blue tribunes keep saying "lie." It's a word after which all discussion will stop, but our tribe dropped ancient warnings about the term all the way back in the Bush years.

Concerning the way large nations can come undone, consider this recent history:

As recently as the 1960s, it was remarkably hard to hear crazy accounts of major events. 

Citizens had a choice. They could listen to Walter Cronkite, or they could listen to David Brinkley. If you wanted to hear crazy claims, you had to search all about. 

As recently as the 1960s or even the 1980s, hearing The Crazy was hard.

We also had an external enemy—the vast and sprawling Soviet Union, which hadn't yet come undone. With an external enemy like that, it wasn't necessary to find Others on the domestic front. The Other was found Over There.

Today, recitation of bogus, even crazy claims is a giant industry. Thanks to our new information formats, different groups hear vastly different things. 

Our blue tribe hears one set of Storylines. The red tribe hears quite different things. 

Today's New York Times is clogged with reports which reflect this state of affairs. In such situations, things fall apart, as empires have done in the past.

Epstein's report describes the situation on the macro level. On the micro level, we hope Ray Epps is somehow able to sue Tucker Carlson for every dollar the disordered cable star has.

Epps made the unfortunate choice to attend Donald J. Trump's January 6 address. Propagandists seeking profit and fame pretty much took it from there.

As recently as a few weeks back, we saw Carlson play the Epps card all over again on his nightly "cable news" program. This morning, an informative New York Times report carries these very sad headlines:

A Trump Backer’s Downfall as the Target of a Jan. 6 Conspiracy Theory
Ray Epps became the unwitting face of an attempt by pro-Trump forces to promote the baseless idea that the F.B.I. was behind the attack on the Capitol.

According to people like Carlson, the FBI was behind the attack—and Epps was in their employ! So it goes when a fallen figure like Carlson has access to millions of viewers thanks to the technologies which have given us "cable news." 

Tens of millions of American citizens believe and trust Donald J. Trump. Tens of millions believe and trust Tucker Carlson. They get exposed to one set of "facts." Our tribe gets exposed to another.

It's hard to hold giant nations together even without such problems. Meanwhile, our own blue tribe keeps coming along with events like the Jill Biden ploy.

If you seek the benefits of wisdom, please repeat after us:

The other tribe tends to be very dumb, but no one is dumber than we are

It's hard for large nations to survive. If history has taught us bluebirds anything, it doesn't seem to have taught us this!

Tomorrow: You can't get dumber than this


BREAKING: We semi-agree with Abernathy...

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2022

...concerning those rather brisk edits: A year or so back, the Washington Post added midwestern conservative Gary Abernathy to its roster of pundits.

We rarely agree with Abernathy. That said, here's his report card for Donald J. Trump, as seen in his latest column:

ABERNATHY (7/13/22): By insisting against all credible evidence that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent, President Donald Trump incited the Capitol riot, dangerously directed his anger toward his own vice president and, most damning of all, refused to participate in the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 20, 2021.

Credit where due! Abernathy charges Donald J. Trump with insisting on a ridiculous claim; with inciting the Capitol riot; with putting Mike Pence's safety in danger' and with refusing to participate in the peaceful transfer of power.

We're not sure why the last of the four offenses is rated as the worst. But Abernathy can't exactly be accused of going easy on Trump.

Abernathy offers this assessment as part of a larger claim, in which he says that the January 6 committee hasn't turned up anything much that's new. Most specifically, "the effort to connect Trump to some grand conspiracy involving a shadowy network of fanatical backyard warriors and armchair militants is a bridge too far."

Or so Abernathy says.

Abernathy is referring to groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. In our view, the committee hasn't exactly made the link between Trump and those violent groups, but we're waiting to see if stronger evidence of some such pre-planning might surface.

In truth, we were most struck by a comment Abernathy made in his column about one aspect of the committee's work. This paragraph features a fairly silly complaint, followed by an observation we ourselves have made:

ABERNATHY: Of all the Trump tweets and sound bites routinely rolled out by the committee, it’s revealing that this part of Trump’s address to the Ellipse crowd on Jan. 6, 2021, is never presented: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” On Tuesday, Trump’s replayed remarks were abruptly clipped just before he delivered that line once again. Why? Because Trump’s call to march peacefully to the Capitol undermines the narrative. Likewise, the sloppily edited video testimony of others is suspiciously clipped, sometimes midsentence. Someday, it will be informative to watch it in toto.

Should the committee play the (one) part of Trump's speech where he told his acolytes that they should proceed "peacefully?" 

Not necessarily, no. But we've been struck, as Abernathy has, by the way some bits of videotape have been (perhaps) "suspiciously clipped, sometimes midsentence." Like Abernathy, we have occasionally wondered how the statements in question might seem if viewed in their wider context.

(It has seemed to us that Ivanka Trump has been "quick-edited" a couple of times. It's surprising to us that the committee hasn't released transcripts of the wider contexts.)

Years ago, this sort of abrupt, mid-sentence clip was known as "the Maddow edit." We were surprised to learn that Abernathy has reacted this way, as we have, to some of the committee's clips.


I don't (yet) see it, Tapper says!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2022

Tapper, Gangel get it right: Did Donald J. Trump know that violent groups were going to invade the Capitol Building on January 6? Had that been a part of the plan?

Way back when, we identified that as the one question which remains concerning Trump's behavior and intent. Had he actually planned for the violence with these groups? Inquiring minds needed to know.

Last night, Jake Tapper and Jamie Gangel engaged in some heretical conduct.  Speaking on CNN, they said that, in their view, this question still hasn't been answered.

In our view, Donald J. Trump seems to be badly disordered. But did he plan for the violence which occurred on January 6?

On this point, we agree with Tapper and Gangel. As we noted yesterday afternoon, we thought the latest hearing by the January 6 Committee failed to establish this point. Indeed, we thought the committee failed to take us where they'd suggested they would.

Earlier, speaking with Cassidy Hutchinson, the committee had whetted our appetite. They'd floated testimony in which Hutchinson said that Mark Meadows may have communicated with the "war room" at the Willard Hotel on the evening of January 5.

(For the relevant transcript, see below.)

Within the novels our blue tribe constructs, this suggested nefarious intent—guilt—on Meadows' part. But what did Meadows actually say if he did speak to the war room? 

What did Meadows actually say if he spoke to the war room? During the hearing with Hutchinson, no evidence of that was supplied.

Through such means as that possible call to the war room, was "the Trump orbit" conspiring with such violent groups as the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys? Was Trump's chief of staff planning for a violent assault on the Capitol?

Everything is possible! But nothing is fact till it's shown.

Yesterday, we were struck—and disappointed—by the way the committee avoided this general question. Earlier teases were set aside. As a general matter, the war room was disappeared.

This doesn't mean that there wasn't a conspiracy to engage in violence; it simply means that no such conspiracy has been shown. And to their credit, Tapper and Gangel noted this fact at roughly 8:20 last night. 

Following a "hang him high" statement by Norm Eisen, their brief exchange went like this:

TAPPER (7/12/22): I have to say, though, and Jamie, I'm interested in what you think, I don't doubt that there were shenanigans with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, and I see tenuous connections. But I have not seen enough evidence to know that, you know, that that wasthat part of it was criminal intent, that Trump knew that these far-right militia groups were coming because of what he said. And you know what I mean? Like, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence about it.

GANGEL: I completely agree. We know that was, that the Proud Boys were acting as security guards—

TAPPER: Oath Keepers.

GANGEL: Oath Keepers, for Roger Stone. But I would say that, in general, the committee has underpromised and overdelivered. This was the one hearing where they said there was going to be a link with the Trump orbit. I didn't see it.

TAPPER: See you all again, shortly.

In Gangel's view, this was the hearing "where [the committee] said there was going to be a link with the Trump orbit" and those violent groups.

"I didn't see it," Gangel said. Tapper had voiced the same point.

In our view, Donald J. Trump is deeply disordered. As disordered people will do, he often surrounded himself with The Crazies—with Giuliani, Powell and Flynn.

His conduct had been bizarre—and grossly unacceptable—for at least seven years by this point. But was there a conspiracy between "the Trump orbit" and the Proud Boys / Oath Keepers coalition?

We thought that topic would be addressed yesterday. We were surprised—and disappointed—when it wasn't.

In closing, we offer you this:

In our view, Donald J. Trump is deeply disordered. That said, various elements of the upper-end press corps have long been journalistically disordered too.

For years, they chased after Clinton, Clinton and Gore. As a result of this group misconduct, Samuel Alito sits on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is dead.

Today, they're uniform in their loathing of Trump—and they tend to jump beyond what they've actually shown in their pursuit of him. Dating to the Clinton / Gore / Clinton years, this is the way they tend to play the game once a target has been chosen.

Their novelizing is endless and far-reaching. Yesterday, their novelizing was on wide display. 

(We've been especially struck by the way they keep putting their thumbs on the scales concerning Meadows' conduct. It would take far too long to explain any of this.)

That said, our tribe is currently on their side. We're happy when they cut their many corners to hand us the simplified stories we like. 

We simply love our tribal novels. Being "human all too human," we don't notice—and we're happy— when corners are sanded, shaved, cut.

A pair of background transcripts: Last evening, the exchange between Tapper and Gangel followed a presentation by Norm Eisen. 

Eisen is, for better or worse, a CNN legal analyst. In this presentation, he engaged in the conduct typical of this large "cable news" class:

EISEN (7/12/22): Jake, we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson at the last hearing about Trump's violent intent—intent is so important in criminal cases, his violent intent on January 6th. 

They built a bridge today, from December 14, when, as we heard from Pat Cipollone, we see now why they wanted him and so many others, the legal avenues were exhausted.

He had a turning point on December 18th in this meeting. He chose the road of Team Crazy and then, December 19th, "Will be wild." That shows intent of the violence that we ultimately got on January 6th. We got a lot of premeditation, all of the planning.

So I think they added to the quantum of evidence. They're moving towards proof beyond a reasonable doubt of crime in these hearings.

Dating back through the Mueller years, the "hangin' prosecutors" of cable news have persistently assured us that criminal indictments of Trump are right around the corner. 

Trump's next crime is always visible to these pundits. Over time, their conduct has helped us understand why our prisons sometimes seem to be full of innocent people.

Eisen isn't a former prosecutor, but he tends to play one on TV. In that statement, he's saying that Trump's one tweet, "Will be wild," somehow shows that he wanted the violent assault on the Capitol Building. This follows the creed of this intrepid breed:

In all cases, every item will establish the target's guilt.

Eisen drew a ton of meaning—a ton of intent—from that three-word tweet. The debunking exchange between Tapper and Gangel followed Eisen's statement.

Concerning Meadows and the war room, here's an exchange between Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson from the previous hearing. Warning to us lovestruck liberals! The fact that Cheney makes a statement doesn't prove that the statement is true:

CHENEY (6/28/22): The night before January 6th, President Trump instructed his Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to contact both Roger Stone and Michael Flynn regarding what would play out the next day. Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General Flynn on January 5th?

 HUTCHINSON: That's correct. That is my understanding.

CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Meadows called Mr. Stone on the 5th?

HUTCHINSON: I'm under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th.

CHENEY: And do you know what they talked about that evening, Ms. Hutchinson?

HUTCHINSON: I'm not sure.

CHENEY: Is it your understanding that Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Eastman, and others had set up what has been called, quote, a war room at the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?

HUTCHINSON: I was aware of that the night of the 5th.

CHENEY: And do you know if Mr. Meadows ever intended to go to the Willard Hotel on the night of the 5th?

HUTCHINSON: Mr. Meadows had a conversation with me where he wanted me to work with Secret Service on a movement from the White House to the Willard Hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with Mr. Giuliani and his associates in the war room.

CHENEY: And what was your view as to whether or not Mr. Meadows should go to the Willard that night?

HUTCHINSON: I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn't sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn't think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows.

Throughout the afternoon, he mentioned a few more times going up to the Willard Hotel that evening, and then eventually dropped the subject the night of the 5th and said that he would dial in instead.

According to Hutchinson, Meadows had wanted to go to the Willard; in the end, he may have "dialed in" instead. But what had Meadows planned to say when he went there?

Within our tribe, we were encouraged to assume that he wanted to say the worst. No evidence was offered to establish that point—and yesterday, this whole well-teased avenue completely disappeared.

We were disappointed by that. But when Tapper and Gangel noted this fact, we'd say they got it right!

Did Donald J. Trump plan, conspire, for the violence which occurred? 

In our view, that hasn't been established yet. Whatever the truth may turn out to be, we hope the committee delves further.


UPDATE: Depressingly dumb!

 TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022

Life within our failing tribe is like a box of chocolates: Early this morning, we started to comment on the Jill Biden "tacos" tempest, via the incurably stupid Daily Beast.

(Headline: "Jill Biden Compares Hispanic Community to Breakfast Tacos." Warning: You need to watch the tape.)

We started out to comment on that. Overcome by the dumbness of our own tribe, we decided to let the day go.

By 1:20 PM, Margaret Hartmann of New York magazine was playing faithful obedient servant. To see her pretend, just click here.

Our team is very, very dumb. The fact that we all agree to play by these rules is very bad for the world.

BREAKING: We didn't have any fish today!

TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2022

We expect to have fish tomorrow: We didn't have any fish today. We expect have fish tomorrow.

We thought the January 6 committee was a bit short on fish today too. Links between Trump and violent groups-wise, we would have thought that they'd be able cast their nets a bit farther.


TOOK THE GODEL CHALLENGE: A roster of those who took the challenge!

MONDAY, JULY 11, 2022

Took it but seem to have failed: To us, it felt like a four-day weekend. Also, the weather in the Baltimore/Washington area was unseasonably superb.

Under the circumstances, we did what anyone else would have done over the recent July 4 weekend. We gifted ourselves with the ongoing pleasures of "The Gödel Challenge," resulting in this report.

Major figures have taken the Gödel Challenge. In its simplest form, the challenge consists in this:

At its simplest, the challenge consists in the attempt to explain Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem(s) in a way the general reader can understand.

As the days and weeks pass, we'll add a bit to that description of the Gödel Challenge. That said, major figures have taken the challenge. In our view, they seem to have failed.

Question! Since almost no one has ever heard of Kurt Gödel, why should such folderol matter?  

Given the way the world really works, it doesn't matter at all! Given the way we might wish the world worked, it matters for this reason:

Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) has often been described as "the greatest logician since Aristotle." Given the role logic is said to play in idealized pictures of human life, you'd almost think we'd want to know what he showed or proved.

Alas! We know of no one who has been able to explain that matter in a way the general reader can hope to understand. Today, we present a roster of some major figures who have taken the Gödel Challenge—who have taken the challenge and failed:

Professor Rebecca Goldstein:

Rebecca Goldstein took the challenge in her well-received book, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel.

The book appeared in 2005, part of a larger series aimed at general readers. It was festooned with blurbs from leading intellectuals who testified to its lucidity. 

At the time, Goldstein was a philosophy professor at Barnard. She graduated as valedictorian from Barnard in 1972, then received her doctorate in philosophy from Princeton.

Aside from her work in philosophy, Goldstein is also a well-regarded novelist. In 2014, she received a MacArthur genius grant. 

Biographer Stephen Budiansky:

In 2021, Stephen Budiansky took the challenge in a similar biography aimed at general readers. His book was called Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel.

The book was favorably reviewed. Budiansky benefited from access to a wide array of private papers which has previously been inaccessible to Gödel scholars.

Professors Nagel and Newman:

Longer ago and farther away, Ernest Nagel and James Newman also took the challenge. Initially, they did so in an article for Scientific American. 

Nagel and Newman were highly regarded scholars in their respective fields. Later, their article was expanded into a short book, Gödel's Proof.

The book appeared in 1958, becoming an instant classic. In 2001, New York University Press published a slightly revised edition of the original text, describing the book as shown:

An accessible explanation of Kurt Gödel's groundbreaking work in mathematical logic

In 1931 Kurt Gödel published his fundamental paper, "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems." This revolutionary paper challenged certain basic assumptions underlying much research in mathematics and logic. Gödel received public recognition of his work in 1951 when he was awarded the first Albert Einstein Award for achievement in the natural sciences—perhaps the highest award of its kind in the United States. The award committee described his work in mathematical logic as "one of the greatest contributions to the sciences in recent times."

However, few mathematicians of the time were equipped to understand the young scholar's complex proof. Ernest Nagel and James Newman provide a readable and accessible explanation to both scholars and non-specialists of the main ideas and broad implications of Gödel's discovery. It offers every educated person with a taste for logic and philosophy the chance to understand a previously difficult and inaccessible subject.

New York University Press is proud to publish this special edition of one of its bestselling books. With a new introduction by Douglas R. Hofstadter, this book will appeal students, scholars, and professionals in the fields of mathematics, computer science, logic and philosophy, and science.

According to NYU Press, Gödel's Proof provides non-specialists with "a readable and accessible explanation of the main ideas and broad implications of Gödel's discovery." The overview notes that the new edition of the book included "a new introduction by Douglas R. Hofstadter."

"What is Gödel's work about?" Hofstadter asks at one point in that introduction. That said, Hofstadter was already very well known, and highly regarded, for having taken the challenge at an earlier point.

Professor Douglas Hofstadter:

Perhaps the best-known attempt at the Gödel Challenge came from Professor Hofstadter in his 1979 book, Gödel, Escher and Bach. 

The 777-page book won the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction and the National Book Award for Science Hardcover. Hofstadter's explanation of Gödel's work was one of the building-bocks of the book—and Hofstadter didn't stop there. 

In 2001, Hofstadter took the challenge again, writing that preface to the latest edition of the Nagel and Newman book. Again, he tried to explain what Gödel had done in a way which would be accessible to the general reader.

Others have taken the Gödel Challenge over the many long years. That said, we'll be focusing on the efforts listed above as we attempt to discern if anyone has successfully taken this challenge.

Above, you see our roster. We've cited five highly-regarded scholars and writers who have taken the Gödel Challenge. But has anyone succeeded at this daunting task?

We're inclined to say that the answer is no. As we noted in our earlier post, we'll raise a related set of questions as we continue along with our quest. Our questions will go like this:

Do Gödel's theorems even make sense? Yes, the theorems are hard to explain. But is it possible that these famous theorems don't even make good sense, judged on their own terms?

That may seem like a ridiculous thought. For reasons we'll note as we proceed, we can't necessarily say that we automatically agree.

Our reasons for doubt will follow. We think this 20th-century story is wonderfully comic. It's anthropology all the way down!

Coming next: Expanding the terms of the Gödel Challenge

Earlier in this continuing series: 

TOOK THE GODEL CHALLENGE: To their credit, they took the challenge! See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/5/22.

ERRORS: We pivot away from our tribe's mistakes in search of some comic relief! See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/7/22.