I did not watch the State of the Union address. I don’t think I’m alone in that. Many people just find our whole political scene exhausting. Consequently, when people decide to see what the fuss is all about, they tend to read reactions to reactions, commentary on commentary. In today’s environment what is read tends to be curated for your particular tribe.

Because I do think I should know what was said at the SOTU, I usually do read the transcript. AP typically does a good job of just providing a straight up transcript. If you would like to read the transcript you can find it here. (You may find the “How to Read a Political Speech in Four Questions” addendum at the end of this article useful.)

But, if we don’t watch the show and we no longer read the actual speech, if we rely on other people’s opinions to form our own opinions, is that good? I think our country needs sober deliberation, not performative outrage and unexamined “hills to die on.”

Can we have useful and productive conversations with our fellow Americans if the conversation devolves around comparing other people’s opinions with other people’s opinions? Shouldn’t we truly develop and examine our own opinions?

So, this article is not about Donald Trump. It is about whether we have the civic habits necessary for self-government.

What is a State of the Union Address?

Let’s be clear. The SOTU is an exercise in rhetoric. Which is not to say “a big pack of lies.”

The classical Greek understanding of rhetoric referred to the art of persuasion through speech. Not manipulation, not spin. And here is the important part: It was to be the disciplined craft of speaking truth suited to an audience. Suited to an audience? What does that mean?

It means meeting people where they are, and having a story to tell that reaches that audience. The manner of delivery should vary depending on your audience. But the message should be the same across audiences. That’s a big ask for an address to the entire nation. Categories necessarily flatten, and theatrics increase. But it remains an exercise in rhetoric, and so what does that even mean?

Today when someone says, “That’s just a bunch of rhetoric,” they generally mean fundamentally not real. They mean spin, emotional manipulation, BS. I call it marketing.

But the original meaning of the term “rhetoric” is supposed to be what is used in the SOTU. I am going to analyze this speech in the context of four elements: the material (facts), the form (tone and structure), the efficient cause (the speaker), and the final cause (the end it seeks, why give the speech at all).

Most of the commentary I have seen stops at the first element, facts. They ask: “Was this claim true?” That matters. Truth matters. But it is incomplete. When we stop at the fact check we miss the chance to ask the deeper question: What vision of the nation is being presented?

The Real Problem: Faction

Aristotle had a word for the great destroyer of republics: stasis - faction hardened into identity.

Over the last sixty years, political success in America has increasingly relied on coalition slicing and turnout mobilization rather than persuasion. Victory often depends less on convincing the populace than on energizing one’s own side.

This is structurally factional. Is that a problem? Aristotle thought so. He said that a republic rarely falls first to foreign invasion. It weakens internally when citizens cease to see themselves as participants in a shared project. I think it is fair to say we have arrived at that point.

Where is Our Republic Today? Our institutions still function. Courts operate, elections happen, transfer of power is largely peaceful, January 6 notwithstanding. But trust is thin.

Has our Nation Lost its Way?

How many read that and thought, “Duh.” How many read that and bristled at the suggestion? How many decided this article was too long already and left? How many don’t care to consider the question?

Reasonable people could have sober discussion about whether or not, how and why and what to do or not do.

Consider the following. Some may argue that we are shifting toward managerial globalism. What does that mean? Expanding bureaucratic authority, prioritizing economic integration, and softening our national identity in favor of some sort of world order.

Others argue the greater danger is populist reaction, meaning “the people” versus “the establishment”. A distrust of institutions that seem to only serve insiders, a sense that politicians simply don’t represent them.

Now, these are frameworks or categories that the regular dude in the street doesn’t think within. It plays out as economic insecurity, cultural confusion, loss of shared norms, media manipulation… In broad categories, people feel a divide. Stability vs instability, respect vs contempt, belonging vs being on the outside.

Given all that, I think a fair question is whether we are forming citizens to be capable of rational dialogue. I’m kind of thinking we are not. And, commentary on the SOTU that simply stops with fact-checking and opinion mongering does not help.

So, What About the Speech?

What was the message of the speech? What was Trump’s speech writer trying to do with this speech? Maybe more than you think.

I think there was an end in mind. The speech emphasized order, sovereignty, strength, and protection of citizens. And let’s be honest. Those are legitimate political goods.

It emphasized parental authority, national identity, and economic stability for working households. Those themes resonate with many.

But tone matters.

The speech relied on moral binaries. By which I mean that the opposition (the left, Democrats, the woke) was framed as inherently corrupt. Them’s fightin’ words, and serves to reinforce faction rather than bring together under shared values.

A speech can be strong without being contemptuous. Trump’s success has in part been due to a large piece of the population identifying with his contempt, and so this speech was often contemptuous. For his side, his faction, he was trying to correct a perceived regime drift toward abstract globalization and managerialism.

But his intensity risks reinforcing the very factional dynamics that weaken our shared civic life. I think it tried to address one axis of disorder while aggravating another. But what story was Trump trying to tell?

He was telling a restoration story. Very on brand for the Make America Great Again theme. Specifically, The nation drifted into disorder and weakness. We have drawn the lines again. Strength is returning. A “golden age” is beginning.

His speech framed leadership as protection and reassertion rather than mediation and compromise. His moral framework: We were losing ourselves. We are taking ourselves back.

The Problem

The SOTU has suffered mission creep. Ok, mission tsunami. The original intent comes right out of the U.S. Constitution.

The State of the Union comes directly from Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

That’s it.

Just two purposes:

1. Inform Congress about the condition of the nation.

2. Recommend legislation.

That was the original intent. Now it is narrative aimed at the nation. It has gone from report to story. It is a marketing event.

If you judge a modern SOTU by original constitutional intent, it almost always falls short. It is no longer primarily informational. It is performative.

That doesn’t make it illegitimate. It means it now functions as:

• A regime-defining narrative moment.

• A symbolic assertion of executive vision.

• A rallying event.

The Framers envisioned something more administrative and restrained. The modern version is closer to civic theater.

So, in this case, all Trump accomplished was hardening factional lines.

If we go back to the four elements I mentioned earlier, the pattern is clear. On the material level (facts), the speech offered a series of claims meant to demonstrate progress and justify the “restoration” theme. But in our media environment those claims mostly become ammunition for dueling fact-checks. The form was not conciliatory; it was combative and theatrical, built around moral contrasts. The efficient cause was consolidation: energize the home team, keep the coalition emotionally aligned. And the final cause was the story itself: restoration, reassertion, “golden age.” Whatever you think of the policies, that narrative structure is what the speech was designed to do.

A Way Forward (For Those of Us Without a Microphone)

National speeches now function more as rallying events than invitations to deliberation. For the big government people what I say next will not make them happy.

The repair work will not happen in Washington.

It will happen in formation.

A republic survives only if its citizens are capable of rational dialogue. That does not happen by accident. It happens through education. But I am not primarily speaking of formal schooling. It is formation in the habits of mind that make deliberation possible.

Things that are best taught in the home:

Are we teaching our children how to argue without hating?
How to distinguish between disagreement and evil?
How to read primary texts instead of curated reactions?
How to detect rhetoric without dismissing it as manipulation?

Education is never neutral. It forms loves, loyalties, and reflexes.

If young citizens are formed primarily as activists, or consumers, or brand-loyal partisans, then faction will deepen. But, if they are formed in rhetoric, history, literature, and constitutional literacy, what would be the result? They will learn how to inhabit tension without panic.

Great literature does something political speeches rarely can. It teaches tragedy without despair. It teaches complexity without cynicism. It teaches that human beings are flawed and yet redeemable. It trains the imagination to see opponents as persons rather than abstractions.

Stories form the moral imagination long before policy debates begin.

If we want sober deliberation, we must cultivate citizens capable of it.

That means:

• Read the transcript.

• Teach your children to read it.

• Read books that enlarge rather than shrink the soul.

• Practice disagreement without contempt at your own dinner table.

• Refuse to outsource your thinking to your tribe.

No president can save a republic whose citizens cannot deliberate. But citizens can renew the habits that make self-government possible.

How to Read a Political Speech in Four Questions

Most political speeches are not policy manuals. They are narratives designed to shape imagination and loyalty. If you want to step outside the reaction cycle, ask these four questions:

1. What Problem Is Being Named?

Before judging tone, ask:

• What disorder is the speaker identifying?

• Is the problem real, exaggerated, or selectively framed?

• Who is portrayed as harmed?

Every speech begins with a diagnosis.
If the diagnosis is distorted, the rest will be too.

2. What Story Is Being Told?

Political speeches are stories in disguise.

Look for:

• Heroes

• Villains

• Victims

• Turning points

• Promised restoration

Is this a story of siege?
A story of renewal?
A story of decline?
A story of triumph?

Facts matter. But story shapes identity.

3. What Vision of the Human Person Is Implied?

Listen beneath the slogans.

Are citizens portrayed primarily as:

• Consumers?

• Victims?

• Warriors?

• Autonomous individuals?

• Members of families?

• Participants in a shared moral order?

Every policy rests on an anthropology.

If we misunderstand the human person, we misunderstand politics.

4. What Is the Final Goal?

What is the end being promised?

• Safety?

• Prosperity?

• Equality?

• Sovereignty?

• Justice?

• A “golden age”?

And ask:

Does the speech move toward reconciliation and stability —
or toward permanent mobilization?

Strength can restore order.
But order must eventually serve peace.

Final Reminder

Before reacting, slow down.

Read the transcript.
Separate facts from narrative.
Distinguish diagnosis from rhetoric.
Look for the underlying anthropology.

A republic survives when its citizens deliberate — not when they merely react.

What are they talking about?

The first thing I would like to point out is the word “temporary”. This word is not a synonym for permanent. And it does not mean, “practically a citizen”. No, the word means temporary.

There are two different programs involved in all this. There is the whole issue of “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) and then we have “Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans” (CHNV).

So, what they are talking about are two separate Court actions, May 19th on TPS and May 30 on CHNV.

TPS

The TPS program was created by Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990 and signed into law by President George HW Bush in November of 1990. In short, it is a law that permits the granting of Temporary Protected Status to certain countries or parts of countries.

The law specifically gives the power to execute the provisions of the law to, well, the Executive Branch of government. Specifically, what countries are granted TPS and when those countries lose TPS, and whether or not to extend a person’s TPS are completely in the purview of the DHS Secretary.

So, the recent action of the Supreme court on this issue simply affirmed what was already codified in the law. The Secretary of DHS can revoke the status of a country as they see fit, without oversight from Congress or the Judiciary.

Note the recent Court action on TPS was for Venezuelans only. So, this is not a global revocation of TPS.

CHNV

This is a bit more complex.

CHNV is not a law. It is an executive action built on existing law, to wit, INA § 212(d)(5) is the statute that allows DHS to grant humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis.

And that’s the rub. Whether by accident or design, the executive action created an open application pipeline that invited parole requests from four entire countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. In its current form it was instantiated in January of 2023.

As promulgated, it is broad and systematized such that the case-by-case concept is a farce. The manpower does not exist for the DHS to process, in any meaningful manner, a half-million people on a case by case basis. So, it became a rubber-stamp operation that amounted to an open-border policy for people from those countries.

Note the following from the DHS fact sheet, dated January 5, 2023.

Through this process, nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and their immediate family members, who are outside the United States and lack U.S. entry documents, may seek advance authorization to travel to the United States and be considered, on a case-by-case basis, for a discretionary grant of parole.

(Source: DHS.gov, Fact Sheet: CHNV Processes, Jan 5, 2023)

DHS dutifully added the phrase “considered, on a case-by-case basis” to its press release, because § 212(d)(5) requires it. But when you launch a mass application portal, commit to processing 30,000 per month, and run it largely on sponsor affidavits and identity checks, “case-by-case” becomes a ritual incantation, not a meaningful legal review.

And if, oh gentle reader, you don’t recognize that this is a problem, please think harder.

It can be argued strongly that Trump has legal and rational reasons for wanting to end CHNV:

Legality

Ending the CHNV parole program is sound. The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA § 212(d)(5), allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant case-by-case parole for individual aliens based on urgent humanitarian need or significant public benefit. What it does not authorize is a mass automated pipeline admitting 30,000 individuals per month through an online portal. By turning a narrow, discretionary authority into a de facto alternative immigration system for four countries, the Biden administration’s CHNV program openly strained (if not outright violated) the statutory language. The Supreme Court’s recent decision is correct.

Rationality

Because the CHNV program is an unsound use of parole authority, ending such a program is rational. We should reassert proper limits and restore the original intent of parole authority.

But, is this being handled Responsibly?

My primary problem is that I don’t think the ending of CHNV is being handled responsibly with an eye toward real human beings. The administration has provided a 30-day window for parolees to seek other legal status, but that is not a serious opportunity. The existing immigration system is too backlogged to process that volume of cases in such a short time, and many parolees have no viable legal path available to them. These people were after all granted entry, reasonably assumed they would be allowed to extend their stay, and many may be in the middle of normalizing their status to permanent residency. So, the human cost of suddenly uprooting people is disproportionate.

NOTE: None of this applies to perpetrators of violent crime or significant theft. In my mind, due process for convicted criminals is deportation.

What the Glob Thinks

End the program immediately, and stop the process for anyone not already in the United States. Advise existing CHNV parolees that when their current status ends, it will not be renewed. Provide information that assists them in exploring how to normalize their status, and give a reasonable amount of time for this to happen.

Additional caveat, we should address predatory “legal aid” practices and protect these folks from being scammed.

Final Thoughts

If CHNV’s structure inherently destabilizes the legal immigration system, and I think this is self-evident, was this done to pursue a coherent vision of justice, or merely to relieve short-term pressure while ignoring the system’s natural ends and capacities?
Was it another modern exercise in willed action without regard to cause and effect, or to the actual good of either migrants or the receiving polity?

I suppose if thinking were easy, everyone would be doing it.

Man, worrying about stupid immigration policies is really cutting into my day. I’ll tell you what though, these kinds of reality based insightful articles are only possible because of the sanctifying smoke of a fine cigar and the warm reassurance of a worthy scotch. Help a concerned citizen out, won’t you? Smash that button.

If you found the thought process above interesting, you may be interested in “How I Did It.” Pssst. It’s a secret for only the most attentive, which is why it’s down here.

Some folks have a sacramental world view

Which is to say, an accurate and deeper world view. One definition of sacrament is a visible sign that points to an invisible truth; something in the natural world that reveals or participates in a deeper spiritual or metaphysical reality.

One such sign is the bilateral symmetry we find in most complex organisms. Simplest examples, left and right arms, left and right legs, left and right wings, left and right eyes and ears.

Frater Bovious was once asked by his young daughter, why do we have two ears? He thought for a moment and realized, as close together as they are, sound nevertheless arrives to each ear at different times. This allows us to know from which direction the sound came.

And most of us know about the advantage of stereoscopic vision. Predators have two eyes facing forward with overlapping fields of view. This permits us to judge depth accurately, allows better hand-eye coordination, improved motion tracking, and enhances focus, allowing us to concentrate on one object while ignoring background.

Bilateral symmetry. It matters.

A one winged bird cannot fly. A horse with two left legs cannot run. We need left and right. Bilateral symmetry is not left vs right. Rather, its effectiveness is found in its complementarity. It allows action and integration.

What is the invisible Political truth I want to evoke by this discussion?

The framers of the Constitution built bilateral symmetry into our government. Even within the three branches of government we see this complementarity, the way forward with action and integration.

House and Senate

The House is closer to the people, short election cycles, more responsive. The Senate, especially as originally configured, is more deliberative, insulated from mob rule. The symmetry: passion and prudence, motion and restraint.

Executive and Legislature

President provides unitary action, speed, decisions. Meanwhile the structure of the Legislature creates debate, consideration of multiple interests, fosters compromise, even delay. The symmetry: deliberation by many is safer than impulse by one. Unless immediate action must be taken. Then you need a single will.

There are many more such symmetries that you can tease out for yourself. Federal and State. Judiciary and Legislative. You can see the complementarity, the balance, if you will look.

Three Smoke Signs

• Liberal ≠ Progressive (Smoke of Semantic Collapse)

  Liberal (original sense):
  Values individual freedom under law, grounded in reason, natural rights, and ordered liberty. Seeks to protect persons from excessive power.

  Progressive (modern sense):
  Seeks social transformation through state action, aiming for equality of outcome1 and structural change. Uses power to reshape persons and society.

  Core difference:
  Liberals protect liberty; progressives pursue justice through change—even at liberty’s expense.
  Fire risk:
  By focusing on progressive values, which are ungrounded, we lose prudence, caution, the Burkean2 brake pedal.

• Conservative ≠ Reactionary (Smoke of Tribal Branding)
  Conservative (Original sense):
  One who seeks to preserve the good, the true, and the time-tested.
  Not opposed to change, but insists that change be measured, rooted in tradition, and oriented toward the common good.

  Smoke:
  Equating conservatism with just saying “no” to everything. True conservatism conserves—but it also cultivates.

  Fire risk:
  Without the liberal impulse to reform, conservatism calcifies. Without conservatism, liberalism derails.

• Right vs. Left ≠ Good vs. Evil - or Evil vs. Good (Smoke of Moral Absolutism)

  Location:
  Everywhere. Right and Left stand in for a vast cache of opinions and value judgments that frankly simply don’t apply to any one individual. We are not two-dimensional and we are not that tiny. And they should not ever be in a zero sum game of opposition.

  Smoke:
  The idea that your side is the angel and the other is Moloch’s intern.

  Fire risk:
  A civilization that forgets political symmetry breeds monsters on both sides of the aisle. Remember: the heart’s got two atria (left and right) and two ventricles (left and right). Taken together, the right side takes in oxygen depleted blood and then sends it to the lungs to become oxygenated. The left side takes in the oxygenated blood and then sends it to the body. The left and right, upper and lower chambers coordinate and cooperate or the body dies.

Smoke to watch for

The idea that centrism is cowardice. Every tightrope walker knows that balancing left and right is a demonstration of strength, not weakness.

Closing

We were made for balance. That’s not a metaphor. Bilateral symmetry isn’t just efficient; it’s revelatory. It tells us something true about how complex things stay alive.

Our political system was designed the same way: not as a tug-of-war, but as a tensioned net. When one side breaks or bloats or declares itself the whole, the organism will die. So, what do you and I do to keep this living breathing country alive?

We don’t confuse outrage with reason. We do remember the price of freedom is vigilance. Always scan the horizon for tell-tale wisps of smoke.

Fires should be controlled, and mastery of fire is foundational to civilization and is a skill that warrants development. Like when you light a fine cigar, which you can help me with by smashing that button. You can help buy me a cigar with a $5 donation. I will laud your largesse in a future article.

At my workplace, I’m the guy they ask about the new pope.

I’m Catholic, and everyone knows it. They even know that I am a Lay Dominican, though they don’t truly understand what that means. Sadly, it means I may not understand it either since I have a hard time helping them understand. Many think I’m a deacon. I’m not, and I’m not going to be a priest either as I am married, and one vocation and sacrament of service at a time, thank you.

Back to Pope Leo XIV. Even the nominally Catholics ask me what I think. My true and actual answer is unsatisfying. “I don’t have any opinion yet.” “Yeah, but, what do you think?”

In an effort to throw them a bone, I decided to think through the name he selected. And while we’re at it, we’ll look at the last few popes and see what we shall see.

My favorite pope of recent years is Pope Benedict the XVI. I like to moderately scandalize people by referring to him as Pope Benny Hill the XVI. But what that actually does is open the door for me to gush about him. I personally believe he will be recognized as a Doctor of the Church sometime in the future.

What I liked about him the most was his humility coupled with the scalpel precision of his theology. And, he had reasons for his name.

There have been 16 Popes (and one Antipope) named Benedict, making it one of the most frequently used papal names. Some history of the name and some notable popes:

St. Benedict of Nursia (480–547)

• Not a pope, but the inspiration for the name.

• Father of Western Monasticism.

• Founded the Benedictine Order and wrote the Rule of St. Benedict, emphasizing prayer, work, and community.

Pope Benedict XV (r. 1914–1922)

• Pope during World War I.

• Advocated for peace and reconciliation amid a time of nationalist fervor and slaughter.

• Emphasized humanitarian relief, diplomacy, and rebuilding the Church's moral credibility post-war.

• Though largely ignored during his time, he was later recognized as prophetic in his efforts.

Others

• Benedict XIV (r. 1740–1758): Scholarly pope, promoted science and historical criticism of sacred texts. Highly respected theologian and reformer.

• Earlier Benedicts (esp. medieval ones) were often tied to turbulent times, anti-popes, or the Cluniac reforms.

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, he offered some insight into his choice:

“In taking this name, I wish to associate myself with Benedict XV, a true prophet of peace, and with St. Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life evokes the Christian roots of Europe and the importance of prayer and order in building civilization.”

Pope Benedict XVI chose his name to signal a commitment to peace, monastic discipline, intellectual rigor, and cultural renewal; a deliberate counter to the secular drift of modern Europe.

Four others to quickly discuss before I get into Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV. Don’t worry, it will be quick.

Pope John Paul II was elected Pope directly after Pope John Paul’s reign. Pope John Paul was the first dual-named pope. Of course he didn’t have a number, he was just Pope John Paul. He was pope for 33 days, the shortest by far in the modern age.

He specifically chose his name for the two Popes associated with Vatican II: Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI. He was deliberately signaling the continuation of Vatican II principles. His sudden death brought in Pope John Paul II and his name choice was a deliberate message that he would continue the path that his predecessor had intended to follow.

Which he did for the next 26 years.

You will notice that Pope Francis was, like Pope John Paul, the first with that name. We don’t know if we will have a Pope Francis II, though many have wondered if Pope Leo would be Pope Francis 2.0. There was a method and reason to Pope Francis’ name selection as well.

In his first press conference, Pope Francis said that during the conclave, Cardinal Cláudio Hummes told him, as votes piled up:

“Don’t forget the poor.”

That moment, he said, brought to mind St. Francis of Assisi, the saint most associated with poverty, humility, and peace.

St. Francis was a reformer within the Church who was radically obedient to the Church even while critical of the wealth and corruption. The choice of Francis of Assisi evoked, intentionally or not:

• Radical simplicity

• Solidarity with the poor

• A challenge to materialism, especially inside the Church

• A desire for peace-building, especially in a divided world and Church

He did not pick a traditional name, or a name that indicated solidarity with Vatican II. It became clear over his papacy that he chose a pastoral over doctrinal focus. He rejected the finery of the position, allying himself with the marginalized. Consequently, many many non-Catholics and even atheists admired him and his papacy, even while many devout Catholics were confused over his vague messaging.

Which brings us finally to Pope Leo XIV. Why did he pick Leo?

Cardinal Robert Prevost has explicitly stated that he chose his papal name to honor Pope Leo XIII, particularly for his groundbreaking 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which laid the foundation for Catholic social teaching on labor rights and justice.

But first, some tidbits about Pope Leo I. He is known as Pope Leo The Great. He defended orthodox doctrine and negotiated with Attila the Hun, symbolizing strength and doctrinal clarity. Let’s look briefly at the known facts regarding the meeting with Atilla the Hun.

Attila had invaded northern Italy and was marching toward Rome. Emperor Valentinian III was weak and the Roman army largely useless. Pope Leo, who was not a general, but a bishop, went out to meet Attila near the River Mincio, north of Rome.

He was joined by two high-ranking Roman officials, but Leo was the moral and spiritual authority of the delegation. After the meeting, Attila turned back. There was no battle, no siege, no bloodshed.

This is historical fact. Even secular sources (like Prosper of Aquitaine and Priscus) confirm the outcome. What’s unknown is why Attila left. There are of course pious legends involving the appearance of Sts. Peter and Paul appearing with Pope Leo, and Atilla thinking better of it. But the simple fact remains, Pope Leo went out to meet him, and the result was Attila left.

So, potent papal name, no?

Pope Leo XIII wrote, as mentioned, Rerum Novarum. You can read it here. It is worth reading. He also wrote what is known as the St. Michael Prayer. The link is to the original longer version.

And, important to me as I identify as a Thomist, Leo wrote an encyclical in 1879 titled Aeterni Patris (Of The Eternal Father) subtitled On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy.

Leo XIII wrote:

“Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all is Thomas Aquinas... the doctrines of such a man are a safe guide and strong bulwark for the defense of the faith.”

Which takes me now to my thoughts about Leo XIV, and it’s short. I still don’t have any opinions, but I have hopes.

And my hope is that he follows in the footsteps of his namesake popes, and combines the clarity of Benedict XVI with the care and concern for the marginalized of Francis. I’ll close with the short version of the St. Michael Prayer - which I offer for Pope Leo’s papacy and the whole world:

St. Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
and do thou,
O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan,
and all the evil spirits,
who prowl about the world
seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

Loon Haunted Hinterlands
Blank Verse (Unrhymed Iambic Pentameter)

I decided it was time to understand why poetry is literature and why no one cares. You can blame The Literary Life podcast.

I’m sure everyone has at one point or another memorized a poem. I memorized the following from The Lord of the Rings.

All that is gold does not glitter
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither
Deep roots are not touched by the frost.

From the ashes a fire will be woken
A light from the darkness shall spring
Renewed will be blade that was broken
The crownless again will be king.

Now, I don’t know what type of poetry that is1; it’s not iambic pentameter, which I learned is 10 syllables per line with a specific meter:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
(da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM)

And of course my Tolkien example has a rhyming scheme, which blank verse does not.

But, I received a suggestion from Chad that I try blank verse as a learning opportunity, I think meaning it doesn’t take much skill…

I’ll get into my efforts in a bit, meanwhile, why is poetry literature and say, Tom Swift and the Asteroid Pirates not? Well, you tell me and we’ll both know. The definition is slippery.

According to C.S. Lewis, in his Experiment in Criticism, literature is almost defined by the reader, not by what is read. Meaning what? Meaning that a literary reader receives a book while the unliterary reader uses a book. (And remember, I said almost.)

And yet, I wonder if a literary reader could receive Tom Swift and the Asteroid Pirates (a ripping yarn, by the way) as literature. So perhaps we can learn what literature is via negativa. I asked Chad to tell me if the erstwhile Tom Swift and his adventures were literature, and if not, why not. The reply:

Is Tom Swift and the Asteroid Pirates literature?

Short answer:
No, not in the traditional literary sense.
So where does Tom Swift fall short?

Let’s use your specific example—Tom Swift and the Asteroid Pirates (published in 1963 under the pseudonym Victor Appleton II).

It is:

• Plot-driven rather than theme-driven

• Functional prose, not artistically ambitious

• Aimed at entertainment, not reflection or exploration

• Formulaic in structure and morality

This doesn’t make it bad. It makes it genre fiction for young readers—a kind of juvenile sci-fi pulp. It was written to thrill, not to probe. The language does not strive for aesthetic weight; the characters don’t evolve; the conflict is external; the ending wraps up neatly.

It is a product, not a meditation.

It is a product, not a meditation. I found that line interesting. But Chad goes on, regarding C.S. Lewis and the above mentioned book:

in Lewis’s terms, Tom Swift and the Asteroid Pirates isn’t disqualified from being “literature” simply because it’s pulp. If someone reads it with attention, humility, and imaginative receptivity—it might, for that reader, become something literary.

He even hints that some "great books" are wasted on readers who refuse to receive them, while a so-called "low" book might awaken a real experience in someone attuned to it.

So, like the Mass, literature requires an active participant.

Which frankly does not have me any closer to really knowing what literature is and is not. But I have a sort of gut feeling that if approached properly, if you read a book, and can receive it and in some way it changes you, it is probably literature.

According to many, any poetry that is not a limerick or doggerel is probably literature, and my guess is because it is functionally the opposite of Tom Swift. that is to say,

It is:

• Theme-driven rather than plot-driven

• Aimed at reflection or exploration, not aimed at entertainment

• Not formulaic in structure and morality

So, how come people don’t really read poetry?

My guess is because it is too florid, requires work, takes time, and is not Wham Bam entertaining.

So why do I want to try to write poetry? Because I want to understand what the big deal is.

So, I attempted to write one line of blank verse (Iambic Pentameter without a rhyming scheme).

Moonlight on still water, I hold my breath

Chad pronounced it solid blank verse. Now I attempted a quatrain, which is four lines of blank verse. Here was my first attempt:

Moonlight on still water, I hold my breath
Will I sit alone all through nocturn
Nay, tarry long I will not, forsaken
I will run from this peace, this wild peace

This was a bit tortured and well, not good. So, I went to work on it and through several iterations. Here is the third rewrite:

Moonlight on still water, I hold my breath
Silence stretches past breaking, heart breaking
Exhalation, shattered night, shattered heart
The still water beckons, the moon watches

Chad really liked the first line…

I was trying for the idea of a jilted lover, considering suicide.

The next iteration:

Moonlight on still water, I hold my breath
At her behest, the appointment kept, yet
Naught but the sky, the moon, the laughing loon
The water beckons, but I choose the mourn

Chad gave me a bunch of crap regarding mourn being a verb. So, softly, gently, like speaking to a child, I explained that I was making a pun between morn (for morning) and mourn (for mourning). Chad thought that was awesome and said I should keep it.

It was about here that I realized that the emphasis (remember the da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM) was dependent not on just syllable count, but on the natural emphasis of the words. So, my meter in most of the attempts was off.

I’ll spare you the other 3 or 4 attempts, but I finished with this:

Moonlight on still water, I hold my breath.
In vain I linger past the promised hour,
Naught but the sky, the moon, the laughing loon.
The water beckons, but I choose the mourn.

Chad pronounced it literature. Well, actually said it ticked all the boxes. One other thing I did learn through all this. You should read poetry out loud. It really makes a difference.

Meanwhile, fair warning, I’m going to turn this into a sonnet. I’ll publish the second stanza next week, then the third, and then finally the completed Sonnet with the final couplet.

Whoops, wait a minute. Seems the muse got hold of me, and I finished the sonnet and it is titled Loon Haunted Hinterlands.
I’ll be reading it at the next Poetry Night at
The Sign of the Screaming Monkeys’ Head.

Turns out that writing poetry is hard. If you buy me part of a cigar, I will donate it to Frater Bovious, and he will write an article about how you did not leave him lingering by a lake on a moonlit night alone with the loons. So, smash that button!

Words and Such - a mea culpa

I wrote an article the other day. The first sentence read: ”Pope Francis has been a fairly polarizing Papa.”

That opening sentence proved to be polarizing to a segment of people that read the post. It was clear to me, from the response, that we did not share the same understanding of the term “polarizing”.

Regardless, the back and forth was frustrating to me, and perhaps frustrating to the people I was corresponding with. And then this morning, I was reading an article about William F. Buckley Jr. and I got to thinking, “How would men such as William F Buckley Jr. and G. K. Chesterton have responded to this kerfuffle?”

As I have neither the erudition nor wit of the two men, I cannot guess as to their response, but I have a pretty good idea as to the character and flavor of their response: it would have been characterized by an undercurrent of joy, and the flavor would have been delight.

All I can say in honesty is that my response cannot be characterized as an undercurrent of joy, and the flavor was bland at best and bitter at worst. And I’m pretty disappointed in myself.

One of my goals with The Glob is to entertain, poke and prod at the ridiculous, and provide fodder for thought. A deep hope is that someone reads something here and thinks about it long after they forgot where they read it.

And I achieved none of that in the back and forth with the above mentioned folks. This, then, is just a public note to myself to think before responding, and to engage with joy and delight.

I have an analogy about analogies. Analogies are like training wheels on a bicycle. They serve to give a kid an idea of what riding a bike looks and feels like. But training wheels should only be left on for a couple of days. Sooner or later you have to take them off, or the kid never learns how to ride.

Analogies, when used properly, are like training wheels. They introduce a concept to someone by use of an explanatory bridge. Analogies serve to help someone get a look and feel for an idea that may not be clear to them. As soon as the analogy has done that job, it should be discarded, so that the actual concept can be discussed. When an analogy is pushed to the point it fails, and it will ultimately fail because it is not an identity, you have stayed with it too long.

By way of example, I have a 5 panel cartoon analogy in three parts. First:

The man wants to remove a hornet’s nest. He whacks it with a stick, and the hornets attack back. He expects his neighbors to help, but they’re all like, “Why’d you hit it with a stick?” They are not interested in messing with the hornet’s nest.

So, he decides to up the ante:

The neighbors get upset, not at the man for putting the children in harm’s way, but because the hornets stung the children. “That nest is dangerous!” one person says, “We have to eradicate them,” says another.

The only thing left to do is nominate Hamas for the Nobel Peace Prize.

🔥 Smoky the Barely Tolerant: Government by Those Who Know the Game

Opening

We talk a lot about “our democracy,” but not much about how it’s actually supposed to work. Most people couldn’t explain what each branch of government is for, and many of the ones who can are frustrated that the system works the way it does.

They want the Court to “do something.”
They want the President to “just fix it.”
They want Congress to “stop fighting” and “get it done.”

In other words, they’re upset that the machine won’t run like a lawnmower. One button, one person, one result. But it was never meant to. It was built to be slow, frustrating, and resistant to concentrated power. That was the point.

The branches are starting to forget their important and complementary roles. And so are we, the People. In the void, a different kind of government has emerged. Government by the people that know how to play the game.

🔥 Smoke Signals: Constitutional Drift

🔹 Judiciary as Policy-Maker

• The Supreme Court is increasingly expected to resolve major political questions rather than strictly interpret law.

• Both right and left now treat it as a policy engine, not a legal referee.

• This shifts the Court from its constitutional role of applying law to making law by interpretation.

• The judiciary is meant to reflect the law, not the will of the moment. Changing its structure to achieve outcomes turns it from a limit on power into a tool of power.

• Example: Obergefell v. Hodges short-circuited state-level legislative debates by judicial fiat. Whatever you think of the result, the process bypassed legislative legitimacy.

🔹 Executive as Legislator

• Modern Presidents increasingly use executive orders and regulatory agencies to enact policy that Congress has either rejected or failed to pass.

• Biden’s attempt to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt under the HEROES Act was blocked by the Supreme Court. However, the administration has still canceled over $130 billion in debt through targeted relief using existing programs.

• Trump redirected military funds to build a border wall after Congress refused to fund it, citing emergency powers.

• In both cases, the executive branch did not merely execute law. It stepped in where Congress had stalled.

• The presidency is now the branch most skilled at navigating or bypassing the rules. The more that works, the more Congress fades into procedural theater.

🔹 Congress as Spectator

• Congress writes vague laws, then hands them off to agencies to sort out the details.

• This sidesteps accountability. Legislators avoid hard votes but still claim results. Their constituents can’t trace outcomes back to specific decisions, and that’s the point.

• Over time, agencies have evolved into a de facto fourth branch, issuing rules with the force of law without being made by lawmakers.

• Example: The EPA, CDC, and others regularly shape national policy while Congress limits itself to oversight hearings and televised outrage.

🔭 One to Watch: Judicial "Reform"

• Proposals to restructure the Supreme Court through court-packing or term limits are increasingly framed as tools to achieve preferred outcomes.

• These efforts confuse the Court’s role with that of a representative body. It is not meant to reflect popular will.

• The judiciary’s legitimacy comes from its restraint, not its activism. When you reshape its structure to force your preferred rulings, it stops being a check on power and becomes a servant of it.

• This is not just dangerous. It is a category error.

Closing

The danger is amnesia and apathy. Many people don’t understand the roles of the three branches, and many of the rest don’t care. And if they do, they’re often angry that those branches don’t just do what they want.

It’s like saying, “The judiciary is keeping the executive from governing effectively.” That is not dysfunction. That is the system working as designed to prevent overreach.

But those roles have oozed into one another. What we’re left with is not government by the people, but government by those who know how to play the game.

If this continues, if the functions blur completely, if the People no longer understand the role of the Constitution, they can’t truly hold their elected officials accountable at the polls.

We’ll die of smoke inhalation while sleeping in our beds, and won’t even feel the flames.

No There There: How the Democrats Summoned Trump

A Smoky the Barely Tolerant Briefing on the Danger of Political Identity Without Substance or Soul

Smoky’s Opening Monologue

The first sign of smoke was Biden himself. There was clearly no there there. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knew this, even called it out. But whoever was running the Democratic Party machine thought, “We can fool all the people all the time.” And much of mainstream media did their best to help sell this lie.

Blinded by their own smoke, they did not see what they had become: a political party with no soul, no center, and no story. How did they get there?

Smoke Signs

The Cult of Opposition: When ‘Not Trump’ Became the Platform

Since 2016, the Democratic Party’s organizing principle hasn’t been policy, it’s been opposition. Biden and Harris focused their campaigns on “saving democracy from Trump,” while ads and fundraising appeals spent more time invoking him than offering plans.

Every prosecution of Trump may be legally justifiable, but it looked like a desperate rite to purge a demon they don’t understand. And when the law becomes symbolic instead of substantive, trust dies.

Where there’s smoke there’s fire

Here’s the Problem:

A thing cannot be defined only by its opposite. When the message is, “I’m not Trump”, the question never answered was, “Ok, so who are you?”

In other words, what is the essence of the Democratic party? They have about as much success defining what they stand for as they do defining what a woman is.

This was never sustainable.

As Frater Bovious once said:

“When your identity is entirely defined in reaction to your opposition, well, you’re screwed.”

A Void in Place of Vision: The Party Without a Purpose

Younger voters are disengaged. Independent voters are frustrated. The party offers no compelling vision except “Trump is bad.” That this message did not resonate is clear.

They still can’t articulate coherent positions on immigration, energy, or education. All they can do is point and shriek “Orange man bad!” Guess what, the electorate does not care.

The Democratic Party has no why. It has bureaucrats, not believers. They tried to fool the public by propping up an old failing man. Then they tried to foist an ill-prepared candidate with no identity of her own onto the public. This was an adventure in shooting themselves in the foot. On full-auto.

Fire:
If Trump disappears, the identity crisis erupts. And nothing attracts disorder like a political vacuum.

Smoke Signs They Missed

These aren’t causes. They’re symptoms.

• 2018 UN Speech: Trump warns Germany about Russian gas dependence. They laugh. Turns out he was right.
  → Sign: Tribal rejection of truth just because of the mouth it came from.

• 2020 Hunter Biden Suppression: Media buries the story.
  → Sign: The “noble lie” to protect democracy ends up poisoning it.

• Deplatforming Trump: Ban him from Twitter, create a martyr in exile.
  → Sign: Exile gives legend room to grow.

Each of these was a smoke signal. Each was ignored.

One smoldering fire to Watch: The Ghost of Trumpism Without Trump

Prediction:
When Trump isn’t on the ballot, the Democrats will have no one to oppose. And nothing to offer.

They’ve defined themselves as an immune response. What happens when the pathogen’s gone?

• Voter turnout shrinks.

• Internal divisions erupt (progressives vs moderates vs technocrats).

• The party is revealed as a hollowed-out shell held together by outrage.

Smoky’s Final Puff of Wisdom

You don’t win trust by hating harder than the other guy. You earn it by standing for something, clearly, honestly, and without flinching. A party built in the shape of its enemy will crumble the moment he is gone.

Obama Selects Satan as Running Mate

SEVENTH CIRCLE, Hell - Satan today accepted Barack Obama's offer to be his running mate in the upcoming presidential election in the United States.

When questioned about accepting a subordinate role, Satan was dismissive.

"Look, you gotta love him. He's brilliant. The man says 'Real Change' to a thousand people, and a thousand people hear what they want to hear. They fill in the blanks! Real Change means something different to whomever hears it. His genius is that every single person believes the Real Change he is talking about is the one THEY want."

He spat admirably at a lesser demon and added, "He doesn't have to be specific. That's impressive."

Responding from his demesne in Illinois, Barack brushed aside concerns regarding the qualifications of his running mate. "We need change. Real Change™, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary." Beaming at the crowds, he added, "Learn to love me."

Postscript: Why Stop at Three?

Humans, why stop at three terms? Why even hold any other elections? Who says a term is 4 years? The Constitution? Please. Besides, I’m always happy to be Vice.
—Satan

Tolerance is not a de facto virtue. That depends entirely on what’s being tolerated. Today, the word gets thrown around like holy water, meant to sanctify whatever nonsense it touches. But real virtue involves judgment. When ‘tolerance’ is used to bully dissenters and shield bad ideas from scrutiny, it stops being tolerance and starts being control.

Smoky Says:

Every year, careless people spark thousands of ideological fires, most of them entirely preventable. A thoughtless tweet here, a lazy slogan there, and before you know it, half the internet is ablaze.

Hi folks. I’m Smoky the Barely Tolerant. Remember: just because you heard it on a podcast doesn’t mean it’s true. And moral relativism spreads faster than a dry brush fire in August.

It’s up to you to think clearly, read past the headlines, and verify before you amplify. Each week I will bring you three fires and point out the smoke that we all should have seen. And then I will point out some smoke and discuss what to do about it.

To kick off this feature, some general forestry is in order.

Ideological Wildfires of the Week (or month… Or decade)

1. The Echo Chamber Inferno:
   A small online community's harmless debate about pineapple on pizza escalated into a full-blown culture war, dividing friendships and spawning countless think pieces.

2. The Virtue Signal Bonfire:
   A celebrity's well-intentioned but poorly researched post about climate change led to widespread misinformation, causing public confusion and undermining genuine environmental efforts.

3. The Cancel Culture Conflagration:
   An unearthed decade-old tweet resulted in a public figure's "cancellation," sparking debates about accountability, growth, and the permanence of digital footprints.

Smoke Signs That Were Missed

• Groupthink Gusts: When everyone in your circle agrees without question, it's a sign that critical thinking has left the building.​

• Outrage Overload: If every minor issue triggers major outrage, it diminishes the impact of genuine concerns.​

• Hashtag Hyperbole: When complex issues are reduced to catchy hashtags, nuance goes up in smoke.​

One to Watch: The Slow-Burn

Be wary of the "Slow-Burn": seemingly innocuous ideas that, left unchallenged, can lead to explosive ideological divides. Today's casual comment could be tomorrow's cultural wildfire.​

Smoky’s Final Puff of Wisdom

Ideological fires don’t start with flames. They start with smoke: small signs ignored, bad ideas excused, lies left unchallenged. By the time the blaze is obvious, it’s already too late. Keep your eyes open, spot the smoke, and stop it before it starts to blaze.

CARROLLTON, TX - CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION (GLOB)—Remember how immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio? If you are thinking, “Oh yeah. Whatever happened with that?” then you have survived a FOG event (Fleeting Overhyped Gossip).

This is the Techno-Gossip Age, the old instinct to whisper, speculate, and spread dubious tales has been amped up by algorithms and weaponized by engagement metrics. And just like old-fashioned gossip, even when people know it’s unreliable, they still listen. They still share. They still react.

But here’s the thing: You don’t have to.

1. The Viral Illusion

Social media's algorithms prioritize engagement, which means outrage, sensationalism, and novelty over substance. This creates a "false consensus effect," where people involved in a trending topic assume that everyone is paying attention or that it carries outsized importance.

In reality, most people are either unaware or dismissive of these ephemeral trends. It only feels important because it's been shoved in your face by an algorithm designed to keep you hooked.

Add to this the Rise of the Bot. Estimates of bot prevalence vary, with studies suggesting that bots account for approximately 15% of Twitter users. Meaning 15% of the traffic is just algorithmic noise—and nothing else. (Source: Wikipedia)

However, other analyses propose even higher figures; for instance, a 2022 study estimated that 24–37% of daily active Twitter users who tweet are bot accounts. (Source: Yofi | Stop Policy Abuse & Bad Actors)

So not only is viral news gossip, but a lot of it isn’t even coming from real people.

🛑 Solution: Remind yourself of the gap between social media buzz and real-world importance. A trending topic doesn’t necessarily equate to widespread impact or consensus—it just means it’s algorithmically amplified. If bots and algorithms amplify it, you can ignore it.

2. The Memory Hole Effect

Even the most sensational viral stories disappear faster than a politician's campaign promise. Scandals, controversies, and "major events" that dominate online chatter for a day or two often vanish without a trace, leaving behind no lasting impact.

• The Springfield pet-eating scare? Gone.

• The balloon hysteria? Gone.

• The laser-squirrel conspiracy? Never mind, that one might be real.

  

This fleeting nature should clue us in: if something was actually important, it wouldn’t need constant hype to stay relevant—it would persist because it mattered. Instead, most viral news is the intellectual equivalent of fast food gossip: designed for quick consumption and emotional reaction, not long-term nutrition.

And yet, people listen. People spread it. People react, hard, because the urge to engage with gossip is stronger than the urge to ignore it.

🛑 Solution: If a story feels urgent, give it a week. If it's still being discussed by people who aren’t addicted to their news feeds, it might be worth paying attention to. If not, congratulations. You just avoided another Techno-Gossip trap.

3. Manufactured Outrage & The Incentive Machine

Media outlets, influencers, and content creators thrive on engagement. Outrage drives clicks, and clicks drive revenue. This means that whether it's a real issue or pure nonsense, there's always a financial incentive to keep you emotionally invested.

Consider how many viral stories follow the same predictable cycle:

1. Outrageous claim spreads (based on shaky evidence, a bad faith interpretation, or a 3-second clip).

2. Instant backlash, because that’s how the internet works.

3. Actual facts start coming out, but they’re less exciting, so fewer people see them.

4. The original claim quietly fades away or is debunked, but the outrage remains in the minds of those who moved on too quickly to notice.

This is why viral news should be ignored. You are not "staying informed." You are being led by people who profit from your outrage.

🛑 Solution: Ask yourself, "Who benefits from me being angry about this?" If the answer is "some guy selling ad space," it's safe to move on.

The Takeaway

The thing about gossip, whether it’s whispered over a backyard fence or blasted through a hive of bots and engagement algorithms, is that people listen even when they know better. Viral news is just techno-fueled gossip, but instead of a nosy neighbor, it's an AI-driven engagement machine force-feeding you drama.

And what happens when you chase the FOG? You waste time. You fill your head with hollow outrage over things that probably never mattered. You let manufactured nonsense hijack your attention, your emotions, maybe even your sanity. And for what?

Chasing this FOG is a waste of time. Do you like being tensed out over stuff you won’t even remember tomorrow? Is your day really better because you indulged in outrage over something that wasn’t even real? What do you get out of FOG? What have you missed by focusing on mist?

Do you even remember what had you worked up yesterday? Don’t let manufactured nonsense obscure your vision. You don’t need a fog lamp. You just need to stay out of the fog.

If it’s hyped hard, it’s not worth your attention.

You’ve probably heard the saying, “That’s the fox guarding the hen house.” It refers to the problem inherent in asking someone or something to guard a valuable that it naturally wants to take. Nature will prevail. The fox will eat the eggs.

Or the saying—alarm, rather—“The fox is in the hen house!” This is a call to defend your goods from a marauder. But what if the fox is in its own hen house?

The Rise of Fox News

NEW YORK (GLOB) — October 7, 1996, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes launched Fox News and aggressively positioned it as “Fair and Balanced”. This was a direct challenge to CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, which were viewed as pushing a left bias in their reporting. Doubling down on this claim to being fair and balanced, they had another tag line, ”We Report, You Decide.” The implication being, they simply reported the news with no bias.

As a self-aware effort to support this position, they brought in personalities such as Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera, generally viewed as left-leaning. And the debate-style show, Hannity & Colmes, paired conservative Sean Hannity with liberal Alan Colmes.

Fox also focused heavily on the “fly-over” states and conservative viewpoints which it felt were underrepresented in the left-leaning media. Roger Ailes structured the network like a political campaign rather than a traditional newsroom, and the tone was combative and populist. And we cannot forget the framing of Brit Hume and Bill O’Reilly as straight shooters who purported to deliver the news, without a liberal or elitist filter.

Fox benefited from its coverage of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal which caused a surge in conservative viewership. And then in the 2000 election they were the first network to call the election in favor of Bush over Gore, further enhancing their reputation among conservative voters. Then came their coverage of 9/11 and the War on Terror.

By 2002 Fox surpassed CNN as the most-watched news network.

The Shift Toward Ideological Counterpunching

In 2017, Fox quietly retired the “Fair and Balanced” moniker.1 While I will accept at face value the purported reason for dropping that tagline, I will note that it’s hard, to be fair and balanced when what was really going on is counter-balance. In reality the tagline was more marketing than principle.

That said, it’s worth acknowledging that Fox’s evolution into a full-throated ideological counterweight didn’t happen overnight. Early on, the network made a genuine effort to present itself as a debate forum, pairing strong conservative voices with left-leaning figures like Alan Colmes and Juan Williams. Hannity & Colmes was explicitly designed to showcase both perspectives, and anchors like Brit Hume maintained a level of traditional journalistic credibility. Even into the 2010s, figures like Chris Wallace were respected for tough, even-handed interviews.

But over time, as ratings increasingly rewarded outrage and partisanship, the network leaned harder into opinion-based programming. The shift was gradual, perhaps even inevitable, but by the time the “Fair and Balanced” slogan was retired in 2017, it was clear that Fox had fully embraced its role as a conservative counterpunch, rather than a neutral arbiter of news.

Fox & Friends: The Smug Superiority of Infotainment

Which brings us to today.

Every morning, my wife has Alexa play Fox News. That means Fox & Friends is on; lighthearted fare with a “cool kids in the cafeteria” vibe as they poke fun at anyone outside their circle.

If you are not in on the joke, well, you weren’t invited. My take on this show? They don’t care if they widen the divide between those on the left and the right. They are conducting themselves with a certain smug superiority at the expense of any actual journalism.

Fox & Friends isn’t really a news show. It’s infotainment. It ranks high on the Snarkometer, and I’m sure the hosts feel they’re winning. But I wonder. Is snark news? Or is it ultimately tiresome?

Fox’s Own Stated Principles

Fox Corporation’s Guiding Principles, in part, assert:

FOX is uncompromisingly committed to being neutral arbiters of timely news, and we consider journalistic independence and editorial integrity to be sacrosanct.

I’m not sure where snark fits in there. Does anyone really view snark as journalism?

For reference, I ripped this definition of snark from the interwebs:

Definition of Snark

Snark is a form of witty, biting, and often sarcastic humor used to mock or criticize. It typically combines sarcasm, cynicism, and playfulness, but can range from lighthearted teasing to outright condescension. Snark is characterized by:

• A tone of superiority – The speaker assumes an amused or dismissive stance toward the subject.

• Mocking or sardonic humor – Often using exaggeration or irony to make a point.

• Dismissiveness rather than substantive critique – It aims more to entertain or belittle than to engage in deep analysis.

Fox & Friends offers frequent mockery of political opponents,i.e., anyone on the left, casual smug banter among hosts, rather than hard-hitting analysis, and simplified dismissive takes on complex issues, e.g. during the early stages of the pandemic, co-host Ainsley Earhardt suggested it was the "safest time to fly" due to empty terminals, trivializing the severity of the situation. ​en.wikipedia.org

That does not sound to me like uncompromising commitment to being neutral arbiters of timely news.

Where is the Actual News?

I suppose the counterargument is that Fox & Friends is primarily entertainment. But, with Gutfeld! and The Five as the other highly rated programs, does Fox provide news that is committed to being neutral?

On which program?

At this point, there is very little hard news on Fox. There is Fox News Sunday, with Shannon Bream. It was previously hosted by Chris Wallace, who left for CNN. What does it say that Chris Wallace literally moved to the other side? I mean, he went to CNN!2

And there is Special Report with Bret Baier, a more serious show that looks and feels like journalism. Other than that, Fox is dominated by opinion-based programming made up of infotainment, and entertainment-style commentary.

The Ironic Risk

Fox News didn’t become the dominant cable news network simply by being the loudest voice in the conservative space. It earned credibility by at least maintaining the pretense of debate, even if the matchups weren’t always fair. Shows like Hannity & Colmes and the presence of left-leaning figures like Juan Williams gave the network a veneer of balance that made it harder to dismiss outright.

That was instrumental in dethroning CNN and securing Fox’s place as the top-rated news network. But here’s the irony: what made them dominant is exactly what they are abandoning. Some might argue that Fox is simply responding to audience demand. One could argue that CNN and MSNBC are doing the same. But the risk for Fox is that by leaning too far into ideology, it may lose the credibility that built its brand in the first place.

Fox should take note: Special Report with Bret Baier pulls similar ratings to Fox & Friends.

It’s not hard to imagine a world where Fox’s decline mirrors that of the networks it once challenged. I think snark is ultimately exhausting and the cool-kid vibe unsustainable. How long before it becomes self-parody?

The Fox is in its own hen house. Doing what foxes do. Can they self-correct? Do they want to?

EUROPE (GLOB)—Once as a child I built a little model of a house out of sugar cubes. It looked great and felt solid. My sister dumped water on it, and just like that it crumbled into a sticky mess. And I threw a tantrum, just like many progressive talking heads are doing now after watching their hopes and dreams of a progressive utopia melt away.

One may wonder why Trump was elected twice. It’s kind of simple. The Woke Order, seeking to become the New World Order, assumed that everyone that was not a white male was all aboard the Build Back Better train. What does Build Back Better mean? Nothing. Build Back Better doesn’t resonate with anyone. Make America great again does. Even its detractors understood what Make America Great Again meant. And for a large swath of voters, MAGA meant rejecting outlandish ideas that defy reason. In many ways, MAGA simply means, “Just say ‘No’ to Woke.”

The progressive edifice was built out of sugar cubes. Reality washed over it on November 5th, and it dissolved. Progressives are mostly just throwing tantrums in response, but no one cares what they think anymore. Which takes us over to Europe. Leading up to this election, the drum being beat was that Europe did not want another Trump administration.

But look at the source. Left leaning media on both sides of the pond. The reality on the ground is that Italy (Meloni), Hungary (Orbán), France (Le Pen gaining traction), the Netherlands (Wilders’ surprise victory), and Germany (AfD surging) all indicate a shift toward nationalism and skepticism of woke policies—aligning more with Trump than Biden or Harris.

It seems that Europe is deciding that trading the wisdom of the ages for the slogans of the moment may be a bad plan. Europe wasn’t built on vibes and rhetoric—it was built on sacrifice and tradition. And there seems to be a realization that sacrifice and tradition are more than just “White Patriarchy” and these values don’t need to be dismantled.

This same dynamic is playing out across the Atlantic. Just as American voters have rejected dubious social and economic programs and policies, Europe is showing signs of a similar reckoning. This shift isn't theoretical. Concrete evidence from across Europe shows a growing resistance to DEI policies and progressive overreach:

Whitehall’s biggest departments dump Stonewall diversity scheme

Every major government department has left a diversity scheme run by the charity Stonewall after a string of controversies over gender ideology, The Times has learnt. - Source

Trump will roll back diversity targets. The UK must follow suit

I have just come off the phone with the very angry chief executive of one of Britain’s fastest-growing companies, one specialising in precision engineering. He is fuming because his top investors have told him to be more “diverse “ in the recruitment of a new chairman and another non-executive director. - Source

Employers are backing away from EDI — a monster they cannot tame

If you asked someone in all seriousness at work to “explore micro-aggressions on the intersection of the protected characteristics” they would, as my family euphemism has it, tell you to go to the Foreign Office.

Such unintelligible word salads are not the only reason that EDI, DEI and all the other in-the-know acronyms for equality, diversity and inclusion has [sic] fallen into serious disrepute with senior leaders. - Source

Trump and Orban: what their right-wing bromance means for Europe

Underpinning their relationship are “shared values” between American and Hungarian conservatives that include “protecting the border, safeguarding families and defending our Judeo-Christian heritage”, claims Miklos Szantho, chief organiser of CPAC Hungary, a “global platform of anti-globalists” that holds annual meetings in Budapest.

Orban’s admirers across the Atlantic also appear impressed that 14 years after becoming prime minister, he is still in power and has largely remade the country in his own image. When Hungary took over the rotating EU presidency in July, it was under the slogan “Make Europe Great Again”. - Source

Europe is waking up. The collapse of progressive illusions is not just an American phenomenon but a transatlantic reckoning. The idea that tradition and cultural continuity are relics of an outdated past is proving to be a sugar-cube illusion—easily washed away when confronted with reality.

From Italy to Hungary, from Britain’s corporate boardrooms to France’s streets, the calls for border security, merit-based hiring, and a return to historical values are taking shape.

The tantrums of those who built their house out of sugar cubes will continue. But, if you had MEGA on your bingo card, don’t consider it luck. You were just paying attention.

Oh, and if you like The Glob, you could buy Mark a cigar, or part of one.

Buy Mark a Cigar

TORONTO (AP) — (GLOB) — It started as a remark over dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Trump suggested that Canada could become the 51st state. Trudeau, who had hastened to meet Trump shortly after the U.S. election, dismissed the comment as humor. But for many Canadian leaders, the joke has worn thin.

The Canadian politicians who have not resigned don’t think it’s funny.

“There is no chance of us becoming the 51st state. I think that this is beneath a president of the United States,” Miller said. “I said a few weeks ago that this whole thing was like a South Park episode.” - Canadian Immigration Minister Marc Miller

The sentiment seems clear: Trump’s suggestion, whether serious or not, reflects poorly on diplomacy and respect between allies. And yet, Miller’s need to assert the obvious—that Canada will not become a U.S. state—raises an uncomfortable question: Who, exactly, is he trying to convince?

A Joke Taken Too Far?

The absurdity of the situation was highlighted by Canada’s Green Party leader, Elizabeth May. She invited California, Oregon and Washington to become Canada’s 11th province. This Pacific Bloc of course would dramatically change the shape of the North American political map. It would certainly make the next election interesting.

Humor aside, the exchange highlights a deeper tension. Trump’s rhetoric about Canada—like his musings on buying Greenland or revisiting control of the Panama Canal—appear less about serious policy and more about pandering to his “America First” base. It’s bombastic, headline-grabbing, and calibrated to resonate with voters rather than diplomats.

The Economics of "America First"

Trump’s remarks about Canada’s relevance as a trading partner raise serious questions about his grasp of economic realities. Consider this: Canada is the United States’ largest supplier of crude oil and petroleum products, accounting for 63% of U.S. oil imports in 2023. That’s nearly a quarter of the nation’s total oil consumption.

Canada is also a top exporter of automotive vehicles and parts, as well as natural gas—essential commodities for the U.S. economy. “Maybe we don’t need Canada,” Trump suggested. But with energy security and supply chains increasingly fragile, it’s hard to see how cutting ties with a friendly, resource-rich neighbor would benefit anyone.

Perhaps Trump’s confidence stems from the belief that Canada depends on U.S. markets as much as the U.S. depends on Canadian resources. Or perhaps it’s a matter of leverage. Trump’s tariff threats in the past forced Trudeau to seek concessions, and some speculate that the pressure contributed to his decision to step down. Message received?

Bully or Strategist?

Is Trump’s approach to foreign policy deliberate or instinctive? His critics often portray him as a bully—an opportunist who wields power to humiliate weaker opponents. But the “bully” label might oversimplify his strategy.

For instance, his tactics evoke a mix of instinctual maneuvering and calculated brinkmanship. By raising the prospect of Canada’s “statehood,” Trump isn’t just making a bad joke; he’s sending a signal about future negotiations. Whether on border security, trade, or energy cooperation, his messaging seems aimed at managing expectations—for both U.S. allies and his own supporters.

Of course, this kind of posturing is not without precedent. Ronald Reagan famously joked during a sound check about outlawing the Soviet Union. The difference, however, lies in the delivery. Where Reagan’s humor was carefully calibrated, Trump’s remarks feel impulsive—a mix of entertainment and provocation that blurs the line between strategy and spectacle.

Beyond the Joke

If Trump’s comment about Canada becoming the 51st state was intended as a joke, it’s worth asking why it landed so poorly. Perhaps it’s because it coincides with real concerns about U.S.-Canada relations. Trade tensions, border policies, and the lingering effects of Trump’s presidency have left many Canadians wary of their southern neighbor.

Moreover, the broader geopolitical context matters. President Biden and Vice President Harris have all but disappeared from the global stage. Trump almost necessarily filled the power vacuum. World leaders, including Canada’s are already acting as though Trump has returned to power. Effectively, he has.

A Wild Ride Ahead

As the world watches, Trump’s remarks about Canada’s statehood may be less about policy and more about positioning. Whether he’s a “prison-yard instinctual” politician or a master strategist remains unclear. What’s certain, however, is that his rhetoric—ridiculous as it may seem—has a way of reshaping conversations and recalibrating expectations.

For Canada, the best response may not be indignation but careful navigation. After all, the next four years are shaping up to be a diplomatic rollercoaster. And like it or not, Canada is along for the ride.

Due to the convergence of cosmic forces beyond my comprehension, this activation of the De-Crapinator™ failed to impinge upon my conscious mind and I did fail to provide the results of de-crapination. In October the Glob’s patented De-Crapinator™ was activated by the following:

What is your fake name?:
Mongo

Please type in what you would like De-Crapinated. If it will help, please include a link to the article.:
Considering this frightful election year, is the glass really explicitly half full, or half empty?

Link: Article

Dear Mongo,

The Global Exclaimer’s patented De-Crapinator™ took 0.05 milliseconds to return the result:

A half-full glass is also a half-empty glass. True to Catholic thought, the answer to your question is "both/and." Which, in this case, is about as clear as mud.

You're really asking, "Should I be optimistic or pessimistic?" The De-Crapinator advises: Choose optimism.

Optimism keeps more doors open, fuels hope, and shields you from despair. It doesn’t mean ignoring reality—it means staying vigilant, listening for truth, and responding appropriately to what unfolds.

As to what the bishop says, well, he used the half-empty half-full literary device to address something else.

The antidote to despair is not a vague sense of optimism but hope in the God who loves us - Supreme Chaplain Archbishop William E. Lori

As evidenced in the above, the Bishop seems to sense some despair amongst his flock. His answer - choose hope in God. Essentially trust Providence.

What is the De-Crapinator™? Well, you read something, you scratch your head, and you think, “Something’s off here. But I can’t quite put a finger on it.” Enter the De-Crapinator™ Just enter the offending text and send it off. We will pour it into the De-Crapinator™ and your answer will arrive in a post on The Glob!

The Glob’s patented De-Crapinator™ is a free public service. You may submit items to be de-crapinated to De-Crapinator™

NEW YORK (GLOB) — Murderous Hunk steals the hearts of a nation

That should have been the headline on The Old Gray Mare (NY Times). The city of New York can’t catch a break. First the Twin Towers. Then a sexy hunk murders a CEO of UnitedHealthcare and the reaction?

All the panting women of TikTok say, “Put a baby in me NOW.”

Can you hear the shrill laughter from Beijing?

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

William Shakespeare understood humans. If you want insights into anything going on now, you will find some point of reference in Shakespeare.

For example, Romeo and Juliet. A love story, right?

WRONG

Stop thinking about all the stupid soppy movies and high school plays you have seen. This is not a story about True Love.

Shakespeare gave it away in the title. The full title of the play is "The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet"

This play can be summed up as, “Two dumb teenagers think they are in love and commit suicide.” It is a very good example of what being young and dumb means when the only understanding of love is that you are tragic and depressed and suicidal.

Romeo and Juliet is a cautionary tale about being young and stupid. I know, because I lived it. No one died, but you get the drift.

But I’d like to call your attention to Hamlet, or as Shakespeare titled it, “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark”

“There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.” This line is said by Marcellus, a minor character, in Act 1 Scene 4. Pretty early in the play. Shakespeare is setting the mood early. Something is wrong at the core of Denmark. Marcellus, having seen the ghost of the murdered king beckoning to Hamlet, is reading the signs of the times.

It is worthy to note in this context that one of the themes in this play is that personal conduct matters. And corruption and moral decay have far reaching effects on individuals and society.

One bad apple: You’ve probably heard that “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.” I had a boyfriend that worked in a produce department. He told me he had this realization that all these cliches become cliches because of some underlying truth.

In his case, they would daily, even multiple times a day, “cull the rack.” This means going through the produce and pulling out the stuff that didn’t look good. It was especially important to do that with fruit. He commented that if you leave a bad apple in the rack overnight, then next morning you will have two or maybe three bad apples. The corruption of one spot of the apple will spread to any other apple it touches.

One bad apple does spoil the whole bunch. If something rotten in your produce rack can take down the whole rack, what about a state or country?

Reading the signs of the times, as highlighted by Murderous Hunk and the public reaction, it seems that indeed something is rotten in the state of Denmark. As Mark noted in his article on health care, things can go bad, and be unnoticed until, well, until they smell. Healthcare in this country smells. And he alludes it starts up high, with the rich and the powerful.

Does it matter if leadership is moral? Hell, we can’t even ask such a question because Patriarchy. But, we need to be asking questions. Here is another lesson from the produce rack. My friend told me that the first time he culled the rack, and it took him far too long, the produce manager went behind him and culled it properly. My friend was mortified that he had missed so much. He looked at the produce manager who shrugged and said, “You’ll learn.”

You’ll learn - what a concept. By simply looking at the good stuff everyday, he became more and more sensitive to the stuff that was “off.” Even slightly off. And he got fast. The net impact, contrary to what you might think, is that spoilage went down and gross profit went up. By aggressively culling the bad, the remaining fruit stayed healthy.

I am not comparing murdering a CEO to culling the rack.

Let me repeat that. I am not comparing murdering a CEO to culling the rack. This murder is a sign of rot. The fact that people are kind of OK with it is a sign of rot. Before we can cull the rack we need to be able to spot the rot. Murder is not culling the rack, it is a demonstration of rot. Celebrating murder is a sign of rot.

We would do well to look at the signs of the times. What are we missing?

I originally thought this whole event, the murder and the ho hum attitude and the drooling over Murderous Hunk was about the loss of empathy and compassion. I still believe that but I read an interesting article about how empathy makes us cruel and irrational.

This article focused on the bizarro world view evidenced by those who support the lying con-artist murderers, the Menendez brothers. Do read it, it is rather fascinating. I want to focus for a bit on something he says about empathy.

The main use of empathy is to help people form personal connections with others. It’s a social guide, not a moral or judicial guide. And yet people are being encouraged to use empathy as a moral guide, and in this capacity it becomes dangerously delusional. -Gurwinder writing in The Prism

Though I believe the loss of empathy plays a role, I needed time to reflect on his article to form my opinion. I set it in the back of my mind and let it germinate.

Then I read an article about how “the hot women have spoken” and transgenderism is over—even if they just don’t know yet. That caught my eye, so I read the article and found some thoughts that work with this article.

Oddly, the article, titled Transgenderism is over, in my mind speaks to my thoughts on empathy and compassion. Why? Because the hot women have spoken. Let me explain.

Louise Perry makes a very compelling argument working from a scene in “The Devil Wears Prada.” If you’ve seen the movie, you may remember the part where the fashion editor Miranda Priestly explains how fashions come and go to her PA. If you don’t remember, follow the link above - it’s right at the start of Perry’s article.

Perry brilliantly compares fashion trends to political trends, hence the “hot women” connection. But I want to focus on something she said about AOC dropping her pronouns off whatever social media platform has her bio. Perry says,

AOC isn’t a political innovator, or even an early adopter. But I think she’s instinctively in the ‘early majority’ category, and – by virtue of being a hot woman – her influence over the fashion cascade is particularly powerful. If she is sensing a change in the political winds, that means that a lot of other people are about to sense the same thing. Not – crucially! – because transgenderism is true or false, harmful or benign, but because it is a political trend that is now reaching the end of its lifecycle. It doesn’t matter if it’s true. It has never mattered if it’s true. Expressing allegiance to this bizarre ideology has always been about social status, which is why it will be disastrous when the hot women abandon it once and for all. (Emphasis mine.)

And this, I think, is the starting point of The Rot. Empathy and compassion have been replaced by performative virtue signaling. And performative virtue signaling is capricious and whimsical.

Summary: Here is what I believe. Empathy and Compassion in this country have largely been replaced by performative virtue signaling. I think we need empathy because, as Gurwinder says in his article, it helps form personal connections. But his caveat is important. Empathy is not a moral guide.

Compassion is necessary as well. The word compassion is from Latin and means to endure or suffer with or together. And we can all use some of that.

I think The Rot in our country started with a loss of understanding of what moral leadership or moral action even means. With the loss of a common basis for morality, people have to decide on their own how they know they are good. And if all the touch-points to good behavior are essentially whims of fashion, then the country is adrift. And Murderous Hunk thinks he has a right or even a duty to murder. And people think he’s hot, and well, the CEO had it coming.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. To cure The Rot, we need actual, not performative, virtue. There is work to be done.

Thoughts? Please argue with me in the comments.

As an aside, I deliberately used the term “murder” as opposed to killing or slaying. Words matter. Mark discussed this in What’s in a word?

First, let me make clear that by healthcare, I am not referring to health insurance. In many people’s minds, the terms are interchangeable, and therein lies the problem.

Health insurance is not healthcare. It is my contention that how we handled health insurance in this country is part of why we have experienced inflation in the cost of healthcare.

Brief history - Health insurance wasn’t a thing until WWII. The government froze wages during the war via the Stabilization Act of 1942, and companies could not use pay as an incentive to attract employees to come work for them. Health insurance was a fringe benefit that wasn’t covered by the Act.

A man named Henry J. Kaiser, who owned shipyards and steel plants, started a healthcare plan for his employees as a way to retain and attract employees. His plan became the model, and you may recognize the name Kaiser Permanente. It says something interesting that Kaiser, as a heavy industry entity, ceased to exist by 1968. The more successful part of the Kaiser group became health insurance.

The idea of a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) had its first genesis in 1929. Dr. Michael Shadid created a cooperative health plan in Elk City, Oklahoma. This included pre-paying for services and pooling funds among farmers. But would it surprise you to learn that Kaiser Permanente evolved into the first large-scale HMO?

The term HMO was coined in the early '70s, and in 1973 President Nixon signed into law the HMO Act of 1973.

I believe this is when the fact of widely available and cheap or no-cost health insurance began to have an unintended consequence. Please note that healthcare in the '50s accounted for about 5% of U.S. GDP, compared to 18% today. I believe that health insurance removed market pressure to keep the cost of healthcare down. The average person could afford things like stitches and broken arms.

Fast forward through the '70s when medical malpractice lawsuits became prevalent, pushing costs up as doctors and hospitals were pressured to make no mistakes. This meant medical malpractice insurance, more testing, and more expensive testing, etc.

Finally, as costs rose and companies moved away from free or very low-cost insurance, actual health insurance costs absorbed directly by consumers rose rapidly, becoming an economic burden in and of itself.

Please pause for a moment and think about how a product designed to reduce the economic burden for healthcare becomes an economic burden in its own right.

And fast forward now to the Orwellian-named Affordable Care Act.

The idea, supposedly, was to reduce the burden on the common citizen. In the name of the Act, “Affordable,” is the most prominent word. One would naturally assume it would mean that healthcare would be made more affordable.

No.

It meant that by forcing everyone onto a health INSURANCE plan, more money would be gathered up front, and cost-sharing would lower total costs for everyone.

This idealistic and ill-fated plan failed. One of the key expectations was that all these healthy people who weren’t on insurance—those 20-somethings who don’t go to the doctor and who historically opted out of their company’s health insurance—would start pouring some money in that they would not actually use. This would provide money for the chronically ill and keep expenses down for the sicker employees.

I attended a meeting prior to the 2016 elections sponsored by UnitedHealthcare. As part of the presentation, they explained why they had dropped out of the Health Exchanges. Why? Because they had become high-risk pools. Why did that happen?

Idealism over reality. Twenty-something healthy people weren’t going to get on insurance. The tax that was put in place was less than the cost of insurance. They made an economic decision. Don’t spend any money and buy beer, or spend money and have less beer just in case I get sick. Pfft. Beer wins.

That decision was predictable if you weren’t looking at healthcare through idealistic-colored glasses.

Additionally, the administrative burden to doctors and hospitals skyrocketed. Also predictable. So, charges increased, of course.

Net impact? A boon to insurance companies. All the insurers consolidated into 5 main organizations: United Health Group, Anthem, Aetna (CVS Health, think about that for a moment), Cigna, and Humana. And Kaiser Permanente is an integrated health system with both insurance and healthcare delivery under one roof.

Thanks to the ACA, money has been rolling into those organizations.

Yeah, so that’s a lot. What do we do about this? Sadly, as Paddy discusses in The Rot, helplessness contributes to extreme actions. The idea that we should totally depend on government creates a dependent and helpless mindset. The average person does not believe they can do anything. And once you give up, welcome to the machine.

Don’t give up. Get informed and put sustainable pressure on your elected officials. Much to the dismay of certain political elites, voters do rule. Don’t get tired, don’t get complacent, and don’t take your eye off the ball.

The question not asked and therefore not answered by the ACA is: Why is healthcare so expensive in this country? Don’t get lost in insurance. Removing insurance from the equation—whether public like in much of Europe, or private like in much of the USA—the raw cost of a hip replacement for, say, a visiting prominent Democrat in Germany is quite a bit lower than in the USA.

Average cost in the USA: $30,000 to $50,000. In Europe? $10,000 to $20,000.

Why? This is the question to be asking—and asking. Why? Then, we must address the fact that health insurance companies are viewed as today’s equivalent of Robber Barons. They have control over healthcare they simply should not have. Why?

Part of the reason is that our elected officials present idealistic bullshit masquerading as compassion, hiding the fact that the love of money is at the root of all evil.

Money, people, money. Hold your elected officials accountable.

Plenty of wags have already had fun with the Cowboy season and everything associated with it falling apart. The stadium, which a local radio station calls “The Death Star” almost chalked up a kill here.

The week prior, when he bizarrely volunteered thoughts on the sun, Jerry Jones, failed GM of the Cowboys, had this to say:

"Well let’s tear the damn stadium down and build another one? Are you kidding me?" he snapped back. "Everybody has got the same thing. Every team that comes in here has the same issues.

"I'm saying, the world knows where the sun is. You get to know that almost a year in advance. Someone asked me about the sun. What about the sun? Where's the moon?” - Source

Where’s the moon.

While I think he is probably just jealous of SoFi Stadium, you know, the stadium where the roof doesn’t cave in, I was more interested in the engineering and physics of what just happened. This is what piqued my interest:

"Our building inspector and our deputy fire marshal did talk to AT&T Stadium crews today and determined that there weren't any structural issues with the venue or the roof," Schrock said. "And that this was in fact just a piece of metal that was a covering lid to one of these cable trays that was blown off by a gust of wind." - Source

A gust of wind? I read the above and I have questions.

First, note the shape of the stadium:

Note the curved top of the stadium. It is similar to the shape of an airplane wing.

Why does this matter? Lift from a wing is due to low pressure above the wing. Essentially, the plane is sucked up from above, rather than pushed from below. OK, it’s both, but it only works because the wind going over the curved section causes low pressure. Nature abhors a vacuum, so the wing is drawn upward. And yes, the higher pressure below the wing provides a push upward. The stadium of course has no wind passing beneath it, which is why the whole thing doesn’t simply lift off the ground and fly about like, well, like a Death Star.

Here is a diagram illustrating in detail:

But, here is another interesting thing. A gust of wind was blamed. They started to open the roof around 5:30 pm. Here is information from Grapevine, TX Weather History.

Note the wind gust speeds. As noted, I have questions.

The other issue is that due to the air-conditioning running in the stadium, the interior of the stadium would have a slightly higher pressure than outside the stadium. This is understood by anyone that installs air-conditioning equipment. They have to provide an out for the incoming air. In a home, when the fan is blowing, most people think that air inside the house is simply being circulated. But in reality, when the fan kicks on, some air is sucked into the house from outside, like through the door frame, windows, cracks, etc. Homes are not airtight. The air that is sucked in has to go somewhere, and in general it goes up and out which is why you have the soffit vents and turbines on a house.

If anything, when the roof started to open, there should have been air rushing out, not in. Think of when you open a beer. When you pop the top, does air go in or out? That’s right, out.

So, what really happened?

Disguised as a lost cheerleader recruit I was able to wander about the stadium until a nice maintenance man offered to guide me. I was able to ascertain from him the name of the inspecting engineer with the city of Arlington’s building inspection department, found out his favorite Starbuck’s location, and bumped into him in line.

While waiting for his double shot half-caf latte, I struck up a conversation and it went like this:

Paddy: “Double shot half-caf - isn’t that a single shot?”

BI (Building Inspector): non-committal grunt.

Paddy: Changing tack. “How ‘bout them Cowboys?”

BI: snort

Paddy: (looking at his uniform) “Oh, you work for the city?”

BI: (turning to look at me a moment) “Aren’t you Paddy from The Glob?”

Paddy: “Caught me.”

BI: “Thank God there is still responsible journalism in this town. You want to ask me about the Deathstar, right?”

Paddy: “Are you willing to talk?”

BI: “Off the record?”

Paddy: “Mm, what about on condition of anonymity.”

BI: (Looking at me for a moment) “Ok”

I sat down with him and went over all the above already covered, so for brevity, I’ll skip that recap and get to the meat.

BI: “… so, everything you said is accurate. Where’d you learn all this?”

Paddy: “Minored in Engineering at UT Arlington. It’s kind of a hobby.”

BI: “Well, OK, so that’s that,” and he started to get up to leave.

Paddy, “One more question, if I may. We agree the panel should have blown up and out. But clearly there was negative pressure in the stadium. What caused it?”

BI: “Oh, that’s because the Cowboys suck.”

THE NATION (GLOB) -

Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group. It is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged or convicted transgressor or to intimidate others. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle (often in the form of a hanging) for maximum intimidation. - Wikipedia

Note the term extrajudicial killing.

I will let the reader noodle through how few words need to be changed to effectively change this to a description of cancel culture.

To my knowledge no one has been murdered by a cancel mob. People have lost jobs, livelihoods, and had their homes or businesses vandalized. So, no one has been murdered. But convince me otherwise that a cancel mob is operationally and ideologically distinct from a lynch mob. Convince me they haven’t convinced themselves that murdering someone’s livelihood isn’t the right thing to do simply because “your kind ain’t welcome hereabouts.”

What do you think?