PMC Commentary

Theodore Roosevelt's almost eerie visions of today

"I'll be back in a bit but first wanted to share this thought from Theodore Roosevelt." That's how I began this post, thinking it'd be a short one. But, Q.E.D., it kept growing on me. Anyway, this was TR's thought to be shared, one I ran across this morning in Sykes' column.

To judge a man merely by success is an abhorrent wrong; and if the people at large habitually so judge men, if they grow to condone wickedness because the wicked man triumphs, they show their inability to understand that in the last analysis free institutions rest upon the character of citizenship, and that by such admiration of evil they prove themselves unfit for liberty.

Knowing the history of TR's words is critical to a fuller understanding of the words' modern relevance. That history, I shall make brief and painless. 

He delivered his thoughts on "Citizenship in a Republic" at the Sorbonne, 23 April 1910. His address has since become known as "The Man in the Arena" speech. It's the year that is critical. The 1910 man of triumphant "success" tainted by "wickedness" was a robber baron of the Progressive Era — that turn-of-the-century time of vast reforms, political and social; effectively a time in which the emerging middle class rose against its (potentially) displacing oppressors: unfeeling, uncaring men of wealth and power, captains of industry who accumulated riches through the exploitation of labor, captains of finance who exploited the nation at large. The citizens of 1910 knew instantly those whom TR identified in his Sorbonne speech.

Always the politician, he was rather late to the Progressive cause but never the fool. He hopped on its popularity and essentially became its voice. Hence the former two-term president delivered another major address four months after Paris, this one in somewhat less regal surroundings: Osawatomie, Kansas. There he proposed a "New Nationalism," or "Square Deal," the Progressive platform of his 1912 quest to recapture the presidency.

Today's wicked men of triumphant success would label TR's "square deal" as — let me see if I can recall all the pejoratives — a radical leftist socialist Marxist communist fascist proposal so typical of Democrats. There were strains of leftism in his speech, though nothing radical. There was wisdom: "The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.... That is what we strive for."

And that is what enraged certain "men of success" in his day. What they labeled radical leftism (etc.) in 1910 is now common sociopolitical and fiscal policy. Exhibit A: When TR spoke of taking "from some one man or class of men" he was speaking of a graduated income tax, which came three years later under President Wilson.

What else enraged Wicked Success? Precisely a few other items that Roosevelt spoke of in his "Osawatomie Speech": ending corporate political power; regulating all interstate business; looking after the "terms and conditions of labor"; and protecting our natural resources through foresightful conservationism. 

Knowing this historical background of Roosevelt's 1910 speeches heightens our appreciation of his profound shift in emphasis at times — a transition in contrast indeed, and yet a reflection of his acute disquiet; his speech and focus now centering on a chronic and ageless phenomenon more perilous than the gilding of his era. It's as though he was speaking of 2024.

Having aimed his sharpest rhetoric at the robber barons of wealth and power — these attacks, socioeconomic — he would keenly careen to the political and a lurking evil wholly consistent with wanton acquisitiveness and Veblen's "conspicuous consumption." At the Sorbonne: The man who, if born to wealth and power, exploits and ruins his less fortunate brethren, [he] is at heart the same as the greedy and violent demagogue.              

The demagogic breed TR had in mind differed from today's only in its principal target: pols who "excite[d] those who have not property to plunder those who have." This was a call for restrained activism, a warning of overreaction; he desired no forthcoming Bolshevik Revolution. Yet outside of that narrow focus, Roosevelt described the America into which we have now plunged ourselves like lemmings, led by the indispensable rabble-rouser. Again, at the Sorbonne: 

"Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness in any commonwealth if the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory ... as divorced from the deeds for which they are supposed to stand. The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them."

TR went further in his forewarning. Every demagogue is bereft of sobriety and right understanding, but there's a subspecies of his noxious presence that the ex-president singled out for even harsher condemnation. "Of one man in especial, beyond any one else, the citizens of a republic should beware, and that is of the man who appeals to them to support him on the ground that he is hostile to other citizens of the republic.... The man who makes such an appeal should always be presumed to make it for the sake of furthering his own interest." 

Going further still, Roosevelt spoke of "the chief factor in the downfall of so many, many nations." Here we come to his preaching a kind of political eschatology. Our downfall, he said, could arrive given a demagogue's particularly ruinous, one-word element. "Wide differences of opinion ... must exist if conscience and intellect alike are not to be stunted." But the whipping up of "hatreds, based on such differences, are signs not of earnestness of belief but of fanaticism." (All italics mine.) 

The ready talker, the phrase-monger, the absence of sober understanding, the hostility toward other citizens, the self-interest — all of them tangled up with and unextractable from the killer apotheosis of today's fanaticism, that which reigns above all, whether in what's laughably called "policies" to come or retributions assured.

Theodore Roosevelt wasn't the only man of history to warn of this nation's downfall; he just did so with remarkable clarity. So what's next? Does the story end here? I take this from TR: Having ignored his layered warnings, we can no longer evade an extraordinary amount of ruin. But we can still reject the foundations of that ruin, especially the fanaticism which otherwise would lastingly undergird, support, and entrench it.

We've entered the fiercest of long games since the Civil War — itself ignited by the demagogic fanaticism that Roosevelt warned of. Many among his preceding generation believed that was the end of this nation. As the war turned out, it was but our second beginning, and one better than the first. Now we find ourselves working toward a third beginning (I hope) — and one better yet.

A House Democrat spotlights his party's worst instinct

My absence today is unattributable to Pre-Traumatic Trump Syndrome, even though I and 75 million of my fellow real Americans — we should reclaim that status — are suffering from it. Instead, a morning appointment will take the day.

Before leaving I do want to note a seemingly insignificant occurrence that in reality said a lot about why Democrats lose.

Last night the BBC interviewed a Democratic member of the House Ethics Committee. The anchor asked if the committee's vote on releasing the Gaetz material failed along partisan lines. The congressman demurred, saying he'd leave comment on that to a House colleague.

If the situation had been reversed, a House Republican would have ripped into his Democratic counterparts for concealing information vitally important to the public on a president-elect's attorney general nomination.

Even the increasingly timid NY Times opened its report on the vote in straightforward partisan terms: "Republicans on the House Ethics Committee blocked the release of a report into sexual misconduct allegations against former Representative Matt Gaetz." (Italics mine.)

So the press reports a damaging partisan fact, but a partisan who stands to gain from it does not — yet another instance of a Democrat surrendering before the first shot is fired.

Wars tend to be lost that way. 

Have a minute? (You'll be glad you did.)

Actually, four. And only a few seconds.

We thought we knew Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" pretty well, having listened to it countless times. But we'd not yet heard Jon Batiste lend it some Blues, as he does in his new album, Beethoven Blues. Prepare for creative genius.

Vould Ludvig vig out? Ich glaube nicht. 

The way Batiste so easily, even casually veers classical Beethoven into bluesy B.B. and jazzy Brubeck is utterly captivating. After I listened to the variation a few times it almost seemed as though the composer had written it this way, with its characteristic flats and, in Batiste's manner, quite subtle syncopation.   

On that last note (terrible pun), and moving to another genre, the note itself is what in my book made Led Zeppelin the greatest of all rock bands. Where Batiste uses syncopation sparingly in the sonata, Zeppelin used it extensively (universally?). Merely two examples, "Kashmir" and "Black Dog."

Give them another listen, only this time while paying special attention to the beats' displacements. Kashmir is positively mind-blowing in 4/4 time (with six beats), riff guitar in 3/4 time, percussion (by the supernal John Bonham) providing syncopation's motherload in 2/4 time with a 9/8 measure thrown in — all of it coming out, somehow, in perfect time. Black Dog: 4/4 time but also 5/4, 2/4, and again with Bonham driving the syncopation.

Enough of that, I've trailed way off track, I'll stop before you begin thinking I know what I'm talking about. Sorry, I'm no music critic. But I know musical genius when I hear it — so what say we hear it one more time, this time Batiste's Beethoven's "Symphony No. 5 Stomp."

(Regular programming may resume tomorrow.)

Joe and Mika divine one way forward — on bended knee

I'll put this in memo form:

Pursuant to my gut-wrenched post of 18/11/2024, The Wall Street Journal reports that "across the media world, journalists and commentators are reflecting on the election results and their place in the national political discourse—who they are reaching, whether their news and opinion content is having an impact, and whether they need to do anything differently." One commentary source in the media world made a quick study of "different" doings: just sell out. This memo is to advise that others will follow, in throngs.

I give credit to Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski for so ruthlessly having bypassed all genuine "reflection" and opting for a wholesale liquidation of conscience. The act lies in conformity with the soulless, global embarrassment of the New America, where shamelessness joins rank opportunism. Both demand ruthlessness. Well done, guys.     

Ms. Brzezinski sees clearly now, what with conscience no longer clouding her thoughts: "For nearly 80 million Americans, election denialism, public trials, January 6th, were not as important as the issues that moved them to send Donald Trump back to the White House with their vote. Joe and I realized it’s time to do something different and that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump, but also talking with him."

I read her words several times in the hope my shock and disgust would abate. They did not. For a political commentator with a national audience to dismiss Trump's assorted crimes and unmitigated charlatanism as less "important" than the ignorant indifference to them of "nearly 80 million Americans" was a media low among a dispiriting, suffocating multitude of new lows.

On my second reading I understood Brzezinski's gambit. I was slow on the uptake. She made those millions the fall guys as cover for her and Joe's crime. She may be ruthless, but, curiously, her gambit suggested a guilty conscience, however deep she tried to bury it.

I also found her citation of "nearly 80 million" of interest. Again as cover, the figure is inflated. Counting continues but as of today, Trump has 76.5 million votes. We should recall he had a competitor. And she has racked up 74 million votes.

I'll play Brzezinski's game. "For what could approach nearly 80 million Americans, election denialism, public trials and January 6th positively swamped the issues that Donald Trump habitually lied about and caused them to vomit at even the thought of sending this serial felon with one conviction back to the White House with their vote."

The point being, the election was close to a tie, it was a virtual tie, so what of Kamala Harris' Americans, Mika? Her answer, plainly, is that they too must be dismissed.     

As for her and Joe's "realization" that "it’s time to do something different" — that being "talking with" Trump as though he's worth it — the twosome win the prize for this year's most emetic rationalization. Yes, I still had vomiting on the mind when I wrote that. For never in the days of our lives have our stomachs turned so often.   

Because it's sickening, I wish to wrap this up. Perhaps I'm wrong but I see Joe and Mika as canaries in the collapsed coal mine of media and politics. Their breathless chirping I think signals the outcome of what The WSJ reports about journalists and commentators "reflecting ... whether they need to do anything differently."

Why reflect too arduously? Just jump on the shitwagon, currently steered by Joe and Mika.

Not your usual political entry

I'll begin by saying I've no idea where to begin. But that's a beginning for this free-flow of consciousness, so I'll hang onto that raft and float with it. 

This morning I left you a note, I'm "under the weather," might not return today. That was indeed one way of putting it. But you — and so many of you are loyal, longtime readers — deserve more than an idiom.

Spiritually, one might say, I'm busted. Wherever my spirit once lay, I'm lying in its ruins.

Freud wrote of the superego, a busy little thing managing one's affairs, mediating between ego and id. I'll substitute spirit for superego — and mine simply quit. The little fucker clocked out. Es ist kaput, in Siegmund's terms.      

As was the case of his ego and id, my spirit — a concept I'm using only for moi; there's no advancing a psychological theory here — is that which hovers, oversees and guides mind and body. Should my enlivening spirit recklessly wander off or collapse inexplicably (I'll cut it some slack), the others are set adrift.

This is most unhealthy. No longer —switching now to Marx — is there a superstructure within, that indispensable, spiritual overlord and mover of mind and body. In its place there is rot, a necrosis that stealthily creeps into the once-happily nurtured intellect and physical person. They too are clocking out, leaving a profound disability to reign. 

Should I ask, I'd be told my disease is clinically defined as depression. But ... Nein, Herr Doktor. That's treatable. I won't deny that condition, and I've just enough intellect left to have re-begun the ever-popular pills for it. That was essential, for my body is paying an extraordinarily high price for the psychic devastation. (See: "under the weather.")

No, Doctor, my condition is America's condition. Thirteen days ago its spirit clocked out — and that was no little fucker. Others would say soul. We haven't one any longer. We squandered it on a cheap demagogue who overtly promised the Constitution's immolation, the death of an American America.

Still unofficial, our soulless journey of (presumably) four years is nevertheless eating into millions of minds and bodies, those once dependent, as I was, on the guiding force behind Freud's id — the primitive and savage. Or do I project? One commentator noted that on the infamous Day After, the folks he passed on the city's sidewalks seemed unperturbed, unlike his 2016 experience.  

The millions I write of, are they not distressed and broken? Or is the indifference they showed on the city's sidewalks a concealed reinvigoration of spirit? We shall overcome. I'm not "getting that," not sensing it. The savages now with the reins have for years been soulless; I suppose they always were. What I'm getting is that millions more have accepted the Devil's bargain.

Yet millions more means not all of us. That I reject. For Christ's sake I'm no martyr, dangling singularly on a cross of national soullessness. I'm but striving to regain my spirit, my soul, lest the inevitable for mind and body. Many, many others are battling the encroachment of this spiritless necrosis. I merely suffer with them.

I also stick my face on this page every day and write of politics. Not today. Maybe not tomorrow. The question is when; my answer can only be just as soon as I have recovered. My spirit, wherever it is, is temperamental — the disagreeable little fuck. It thinks it has a mind of its own. Well listen up, you — you're above that. You're above intellect and only somewhat familiar with body. And goddamnit we both need you back.

I think — and this is only my abandoned intellect speaking — I think my spirit may be off in search of a way forward. Where we have trod and now tread is unspeakably sick — thus useless as a template for writing. My body arises, painfully these days, whereupon my mind asks each morning, What is to be done? Not that old shit, for sure, is the echoing reply.

Nine years of my and a thousand other commentators' bashing of Trump, ridiculing of Trump and exposing his miasmic soullessness have accomplished only the blowback of his victoriousness. We influenced no one. We made the Devil a martyr. We put a .45 to our heads and blew away our entire raison d'être.

With it went my spiritual motivation to keep plugging, and that has racked mind and body. In correspondence this morning with my good friend, the Canadian poet Norm Sibum, I informed him of what I had resisted: the truth. I'm shot. Spent. Down. And by now he knows what that means. Elaboration not required.  

I then made note of a possible post today, "a deeply personal" one, no usual politics, for we've seen the productivity of that route. Sibum replied: "You can't force it. Be patient with yourself. Tell your readers to be patient with you. In any case, I think a great many of us are in the same pickle: what the hell happened and where is this going?"

Precisely. But Sibum had unknowingly posted a piece this morning of great relevance to me, which I had just read and promptly deemed brilliant. He penned this masterpiece at his site, Ephemeris, which only fools don't read. While lamenting political commentary as practiced, that where all the Trumpian "speciousness" and fraudulence of it overwhelms, my friend and outside observer reflected, "reason is better off vacating the field to joust another day." 

Again, precisely. Sibum had pinpointed my affliction, in large part and from afar, with terrifying accuracy. Reason. What's the use? To quote myself, "Where we have trod and now tread is unspeakably sick — thus useless as a template for writing." This has haunted for days, eating at me; it crushed my spirit and moved on to the task of glacially destroying mind and body.

Nine years of reason invested in fighting this plague of madness – all of it only to culminate in the latter's re-enthronement. We fucked up, we "reasonable" commentators. Our weapon was a self-pointed .45 of rationality inveighing against what was so clearly insane, while all long the insanity was wielding howitzers and blowing away America's soul.

What is to be done, then? I've no offense but Reason. To forsake it as my intellect was forsaken by that which once guided it would be to forsake what I have, ever wanted to have. Until this ugliest of eras, Reason was king. Now it's a pathetic pauper, the lowliest of commoners.  

You see the problem, just as you now understand my malady and grasp its hopelessness, or so it seems. But no I won't pull the trigger, not again. There must be some other path, along which can travel some sister variation of Pure Reason, itself "better off vacating the field to joust another day." 

Hence I return to another self-quote: "I think — and this is only my abandoned intellect speaking — I think my spirit may be off in search of a way forward." I appreciate that hope is not a strategy. But, gentle reader, it has come to that.

I'm hoping my errant spirit is indeed out there somewhere, seeking that healthful, forward path. Perhaps I mistook its absence — crushed or not — as unconcern for my welfare. Should it drop by again — no, let's keep the faith — when it drops by again, you'll know it. Because I'll be here. My spiritual powers were once expeditious. We'll see if they regain their strength and speed soon. God I hope so.

You may have read otherwise

I'm late with this, but it was too good to drop. (I'm also really under the weather today. This may be my only post.)

Trump Nominates Head of CIA

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In his latest major appointment, on Thursday Donald J. Trump nominated a new chief of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Speaking to reporters, Trump praised his nominee’s “extensive experience with Russia.”

“I have phone conversations with him every day, and he knows everything I know,” Trump told reporters. “Plus, the CIA won’t be the first spy agency he’s worked for.”

Citing another qualification of his nominee, Trump said, “He already has a great working relationship with Tulsi."

Andy Borowitz and I are on the same (news) page

I have mentioned to friends but I'm not sure I have mentioned here that the only television news source I've watched over the last couple years is the BBC, which I receive "streaming" on Samsung Free TV. (I like saying "the BBC" not "BBC," for it sounds almost subversive, like an anti-Hitler German tuning in to "the wireless" of "the BBC" in 1942.)   

I'm hooked on the network, although I'm not much of a TV news consumer. The BBC's political coverage of the 2024 race far exceeded in quality anything available on cable or network news. I've also learned more about everyday British politics, and, as Borowitz notes below, the BBC covers international news — for example, a half-hour each day on Africa — which domestic sources avoid because so many Americans believe the U.S. is the center of all things universal; other people don't exist.

With heartbreak I concede I'm not "the most interesting man in the world." Nevertheless, "I don't always watch TV news. But when I do, I prefer the BBC." As does Borowitz — this, from his subscription page:

Since the election, cable news channels have seen their ratings crater. And hundreds of thousands of Washington Post readers have cancelled their subscriptions to protest the craven behavior of the paper’s owner, Lex Luthor wannabe Jeff Bezos.

So you might be wondering: now that I’m over mainstream media, where do I get my news?...

[Answer: the BBC.]

You could watch MSNBC’s entire primetime lineup and never know that there’s a continent called Africa. Tune in to the BBC [I'm not alone, Andy also adds a 'the'] and you’ll learn all about the civil war in Sudan, which is affecting a huge swath of your fellow humans. Such coverage will make all those cable roundtables about whether Tim Walz was the right choice seem pretty silly.

He's right. Once you've had the BBC, you'll never go back.     

Borowitz concludes with this:

But I wouldn’t recommend consuming the news—even from an excellent source like the BBC—around the clock. I’m not a neuroscientist like George Santos, but in my experience, turning off the news is good for your mental health. And you’ll have more time for things you actually enjoy. Read a novel. See a friend. Walk your dog. Which is what I’m going to do right now.

Again I agree, no one should "consume the news around the clock." That way surely lies madness; I know because I'm damn close to it. My psychotic tipping point also lies somewhere in print, not television, which I already told you. Anyway, I know I'm consuming much too much news to retain a healthy mental balance. Hours a day of Trump Trump Trump could send even Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom — the quality closest to patience — into an unhinged tailspin.

Still, my fear of what Borowitz advises is that rational Americans will take it too far — this ignoring the news thing. Have we not had enough of that? Ignorance of what's going on is what led us to this point. It's a national plague. If even more Americans now avert their eyes from the hideous spectacle of Washington, D.C., then we're all toast, to use a cliché, which otherwise I never do — and that alone shows you how far along to the road's tipping point of madness I just might be.

Now hear this - my new social media site, no more Twitter

As I wrote yesterday, I'm done with putting my posts on Twitter or X or, more properly, Fascism Today.

I'm now posting at Bluesky, which has taken in a mass exodus of former Twitter users since Election Day.  

If I don't appear when you click on the above link, simply search for "pmcarpenter." Then the more important thing: Click Follow. [I nearly forgot. You will of course need to create an account first. It's super fast. I created mine in ... one minute?] 

I'm begin' ya, click Follow. I'm starting from scratch on Blue Sky, leaving behind several hundred followers on Voldemort's site. But it's a pleasurable departure — so pleasurable, I don't care about the loss of followers (for the time being). 

I thank you, one and all. —PM

@pmcarpenter.bsky.social

An early morning with a Breitbart blockhead

As I was coping with Facebook this morning I ran across the detritus below. Mr. Nolte's embedded bio says he's a "writer," but it turns out what he does is scribble garbage for Breitbart.com. There are no writers there, just shallow propagandists. In his bio he also includes his "pronouns," which he declares are "tits and ass." Now that's class.  

Nolte had about 20 comments on this post. Each one either raved about his brilliance or snickered at those leftist "elites," "hypocrites" and "ideologues." I left this remark: "I've read this nonsense from the far right many times. It springs from two sources: unoriginality and table-turning. Rational writers have cogently articulated why the far right is precisely what you accuse the left of. Your tactic: Just turn the accusation around. It comforts you. Yet there's no evidence of it, anywhere. It's baseless. Try being original someday. You might even become a writer. I doubt it but give it a whirl."

The gentleman "writer" wasn't worth my effort, but what the hell, it was about 4:30 a.m., I had not yet gone to bed — still haven't and won't, it's now a new day — and it's in these wee hours when my sleepless brain occupies itself with such frivolities. More follows.   

I'd first like to say I rather like elites, given that they're generally experts of some kind and I happen to respect expertise. That, as you know, is most unfashionable on the far right. The reason is simple: They're ignorant and envious of informed, intelligent minds. They compensate by praising and elevating their fellow ignoramuses to high offices, where they can launch full-scale assaults on experts and try to convince folks that their official ignorance is better for them. (And they just succeeded.)   

As for "ideologues," it's likely true that their breed is more common on the left. I detest ideologies — they replace thinking — nevertheless I'll take them any day over the abject lack of principles displayed by the contemporary right.

What we see today is ahistorical. Trumpism is fascism and fascism is an ideology, yet Trumpism has virtually none. Its primary feature is erraticism, otherwise sharing true fascist ideology mostly in its brutality and celebration of anti-intellectualism.

As contemptible as Hitler's ideology was, it contained unwavering principles. Hitler and his subordinates also reveled in their disdain of intellectuals, yet they churned out whole libraries of pseudointellectualism, which they passed off as the real thing. Trump eschews even that. Simply put, Trumpism is whatever Trump says it is — by the hour — even though there's no way to classify it other than as genuinely fascistic. Historians will puzzle over this phenomenon.                 

Last, this Nolte clown seems particularly ticked at elites' "hypocrisies." I might be too if I knew what in hell Nolte was talking about. But just as erraticism is a primary feature of Trumpism, so is obscurantism among his propagandists. They avoid specifics for good reason: They haven't any which apply only to elites. But it's sure easy to throw around just the accusation of their singular hypocrisy, and besides, the rabble eats it up.    

This concludes my encounter with "tits and ass" John Nolte. And may I never encounter him again.

The vagaries of Facebook, the stupidity of AI

Two posts below this one you'll see the title,

When you heft a moron on morons' shoulders

But you won't see it on Facebook. After I posted it here I promoted it there. Within seconds I received this FB message: "We removed your post. See why."

I found this most considerate of Mr. Zuckerberg. And naturally I ventured off to "see why," whereupon I received this message: "It looks like you tried to get likes, follows, shares or video views in a misleading way." 

Sorry, Mark Z., you lost me there. I can't even begin to square that with the post's title. 

I was then invited to review my site's "Page Status." Well, its status must be in awful shape, I assumed, given its criminal severity.Yet, under the heading "Community Standard Violations," there was this: 

Ah, but what about the heading, "Account Status"? Surely a blindfold and cigarette awaited me here. Instead,  

I post this piece for two reasons. Some readers follow me on FB, but the Musk-as-moron post they missed because FB's AI assassinated it. The larger reason is in noting that AI programs are literally mindless — and as such, they can do damage while having no "idea" of what it is they're doing. They're stupid in the truest sense of the word. What I've related here about one post is utterly insignificant, of course. But what significant damage or heaps of damage might AI do someday? — harm that could affect us all? And that is worrisome.     

(By the way, I'm going to promote this post on FB. We'll see if AI's feelings were hurt and if it followed up with more retribution.) 

Cowards - the most sickening tweet ever

If the corporate executive mind ever believed it had a responsibility to uphold the best of America, rather than wallowing profitably in its filth, that mind is no more. Out of gutless fear of what Elon Musk might tell the incoming "president" and his hatchet man at DOJ — from my imagination: "Those evil, pro-Biden executives are still harming my 'X' business and I want them investigated" — they have preemptively caved to the pressure. They're back on his site, advertising.  

I began the above with "if," although once upon a far-lost time some corporate minds did, in fact, strive to be a part of what was good for the country. When President Eisenhower nominated GM's CEO, Charlie Wilson, to be his defense secretary, a skeptical senator asked at his confirmation hearing about a situation that might arise "where you had to make a decision which was extremely adverse to the interests of your stock and General Motors Corp.... Could you make that decision?" Wilson replied: "Yes, Sir, I could. I cannot conceive of one [such situation] because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."

Wilson was right and I wax nostalgic. Today's crop of corporate executives have the spine of a salamander. And Elon Musk is reveling in their cowardice.   

Just want to say that we super appreciate major brands resuming advertising on our platform!

Thanks @lindayaX and the whole 𝕏 team for your hard work in restoring confidence in our platform and ensuring that advertising content only appears where advertisers want it shown. https://t.co/e508KrMo9g

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 15, 2024

Not trusting Elon's word for this, I sought confirmation from AdWeek. Whereupon my stomach turned again. "X’s former top advertisers including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Lionsgate Entertainment, have resumed ad spending on the platform this year," reports the publication, "albeit at much lower rates than before."

As if that wasn't enough, "A spokesperson from IBM told AdWeek its approach to X has not changed." The bastards won't even admit it. "Comcast, Disney, and Lionsgate did not respond to media requests." Others did but too late for AdWeek's story. 

So they're cowards and I'm a hypocrite. I'll promote this post on Elon's extortion-racket site, as I've done for years. Note to readers who are reading this because of the Twitter link: If you like this site, bookmark it. Because I don't like being a hypocrite. After today, no more linking on Twitter or X and, presto, no more hypocrisy.

When you heft a moron on morons' shoulders

America, meet the man who could have the most direct effect on your everyday life for the next several years.

By "the next several years," you likely thought I meant four. I did not. The "effect" on your life would linger far beyond 20 January 2029. That's because a Second Great Depression would present, oh, let's call it a problem not easily or quickly corrected by the next, rational administration, assuming one is allowed. 

Would it then help to recall that this problem wasn't your fault? — that it was a majority of voters in 2024 who brought this economic hell down on America? No, it won't help, since you'll be suffering right along with the 75 million majority morons who voted for Donald Trump, who then put the pictured gentleman, Elon Musk, in charge of slashing government waste. 

An electoral majority of morons. That's hard to accept. Nevertheless, in this, the world's oldest representative democracy, an electoral majority is presumed to be the equivalent of the nation's political IQ. So accept it we must, based on the 2024 majority's profoundly stupid decisions.   

Only one of which was the aforementioned: putting Musk, who evidently prefers to dress as a kind of internet-trolling biker, in charge of all things financial concerning the federal government. Speaking of morons, here's a man who way overpaid $44 billion for Twitter, which he moronically renamed X and then drove its "worth" down to $9.4 billion, says the investment firm Fidelity. That alone — Elon + high finance + Twitter's implosion — should make anyone really nervous.  

He, however, is doing just fine. Forbes' recent ranking of the humanly obscene had Musk's net worth right around $300 billion. Of that amount, not one dime would be harmed by all his slashing. He says he wants to reduce the number of federal agencies to 99 (there are now 400). The NY Times observed that "SpaceX, Tesla and other companies Mr. Musk created ... have been targeted recently in at least 20 different investigations or lawsuits by federal agencies. That means Mr. Musk will somehow be watching over agencies that police his companies." Self-explanatory. 

You and I are a different story altogether. Musk believes we should be in for some pain, since "we have to reduce spending to live within our means." And that, he continued, "necessarily involves some temporary hardship." He also said "everyone" — minus one, which he omitted — "is going to have to take a haircut." Only a king of the morons worth $300 billion would tell Americans earning on average less than $60,000 a year — and millions of citizens, far less than that — that they must sacrifice.    

Our one hope is that Elon Musk proves himself as incompetent at his new job as he has been at Twitter. He unquestionably is as ignorant as the voters who indirectly put him in charge of this charade; he understands nothing about the complexity of the modern federal government or the sheer impossibility of cutting $2 trillion from its revenue and "balanc[ing] the budget immediately," as he also said he could do.

My guess is that this ignoramuses' incompetence will rather speedily frustrate his budget-slashing fevers; he'll realize that his "coworker," Vivek Ramaswamy, is even dumber then he is; he'll gradually then swiftly get bored with his new power toy; and before we know it, he'll turn off the office lights and wander off the job — and not a peep about its shutdown will come from the Trump administration.

The ultimate achievement of ultimate moronity: nothing. 

Join my scavenger hunt

Dear reader: Did you see this piece on DefSec Hegseth on my site yesterday? Someone please tell me, yes, it was there. Otherwise, I've not lost a post, I've lost my mind. 

As noted, yesterday I wrote an 800-word piece (above) on Trump's inspired choice of a Fox News host as his secretary of defense. I just happened to notice that now the piece is not there. But at least Facebook thinks I posted it. (When I clicked on the title in FB, I got today's Giuliani piece.)

In 20 years of writing on this site I've not seen this happen. I'm posting this note for two reasons: that perhaps you saw the Hegseth piece and will let me know of that in the comment section, and I definitely wanted you to know that I did not simply dismiss as unimportant Trump's insane choice of a defense secretary.

I wrote about it. I wrote 800 words on it. Now I'd kinda like to know where they are.  

But it's OK, Matt. The grifting makes up for it.

Giuliani Warns Matt Gaetz That Trump Never Pays His Attorneys

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Urging him “not to take that freaking job,” on Wednesday Rudolph Giuliani warned Rep. Matt Gaetz that Donald J. Trump never pays his attorneys.

“I know what you’re thinking—'I’ll get paid millions and then I’ll be swimming in hooch and broads,’” the former New York mayor said. “Not gonna happen!”

“When Trump cans your ass—and he will—you’ll be in the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot with me drinking Two-Buck Chuck straight from the bottle.”

For his part, Trump said that by choosing Gaetz he was keeping his campaign promise of creating jobs for unskilled white men.

***

Addendum A

You may have noticed Rudy pulling up to his Palm Beach voting site last week in a Mercedes SL500 convertible. He did so in defiance of a judge's order that he deliver the car to former Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, to whom he owes $148 million as the result of a defamation suit.

The mother-daughter team were also to receive the contents of Rudy's multimillion-dollar Manhattan apartment. But as the time approached for the property's surrender, Trump's former legal adviser cleaned the place out and squirreled away the goods to a location unknown to its rightful owners, also in defiance of a judicial order.

Other items that Rudy still has and mother-daughter should have instead are some New York Yankees memorabilia and a couple dozen luxury watches. None of this even comes close in value to the amount he owes them, yet four years after defaming them, leading to public harassment and death threats, the injured parties still have no Mercedes, no confiscated property, and no luck. 

On the other hand, Giuliani's spokesman said in a letter to the press that "the weaponization of our once-sacred justice system should concern every American." So perhaps my priorities are misplaced. They who have collected nothing from a $148 million judgment aren't the injured parties. Rudy is.

But, this just in: Two weeks ago, Giuliani attorney Kenneth Caruso formally informed the court that his client was being perfectly cooperative. "[He] is, and will remain, ready to comply" with the court's orders, insisted Caruso. So there it is: Though Rudy has done nothing wrong, he's still being subjected to our once-sacred justice system's weaponization. A curious thing, however. Yesterday, that same attorney formally asked the court to be released from defending Rudy because his client is acting in bad faith. In brief, it's Giuliani weaponizing the system against justice. So I guess I'll place my priorities back where they were.   

Addendum B

Why would I write about already forgotten Rudy Giuliani when the pertinent subject of Borowitz's report was Matt Gaetz and his future as U.S. attorney general?

Because I couldn't tolerate the alternative, immediate future of writing another piece decrying mainstream journalism's soft-headed reporting of Gaetz's Trumpian career advancement as merely "controversial," "unconventional," or, from The NY Times, "surprising," rather than what it is: loony, harebrained, and utterly mad.

Is Politico playing a joke on us? Attorney General Gaetz? DNI Gabbard? No. Can't be. Unbelievable.

In a hurry but just saw this come in from Politico ...

Tulsi Gabbard named as director of national intelligence and —

Matt Gaetz named as attorney general.

This is a joke, right? This can't be real. This can't be for real. This is the worst fucking nightmare I have ever had. Someone wake me. I'm biggin' ya.