Investigative journalist Seymour (“Sy”) Hersh is a complicated man. 

88 years old today, his career has been a testament to his courage, tenacity and outrage, believing America could only get better if the dark recesses that our government is always hell-bent on covering-up could be exposed to the light of his story-telling.

His half-century of revelations have extended from the massacre of over 500 villagers, including babies and pregnant women, in My Lai during the Vietnam War in 1968 (in order to contribute “body counts” that our military leaders at the time felt they needed for their press briefings), to the first person accounts and shattering cellphone images of Iraqis being tortured by American interrogators and their dogs at the secret Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.

Along the way, Hersh also revealed the illegal bombing of neutral Cambodia during the Vietnam War; how the Committee to Re-elect the President paid “hush money” to those on trial for the Watergate break-in; how the CIA, in violation of its charter, “conducted a massive, illegal domestic intelligence operation during the Nixon administration against the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States”; and that same CIA’s illicit and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to breed their own Manchurian Candidate through the use of LSD.

He also got things wrong over the years. For example, he believed Syria’s Bashar al-Assad’s denials about using chemical weapons against his own people in 2013, saying (with more than a little defiance) in a recent interview:

I saw him two, or three, or four times, and I didn’t think he was capable of doing what he did, period. Is it an example of getting too close to power? Of course. What else is it? I never thought he was Mother Theresa, but I thought he was ok. If I have made the claim in prior interviews that I was perfect, I would now withdraw it.

And even more recently, in 2023, Hersh relied on a single source, who turned out to be unreliable, for his charge that the CIA had collaborated with Norway to blow up the North Stream pipeline that was providing Russian gas to Germany (“So what? So what? Legitimate criticism. Absolutely.”) 

But, the cranky, defensive, indomitable, paranoid and often funny Hersh is still at it today, with a Substack that of course he calls “It’s Worse Than You Think.”

What I wanted to know is: Does Pulizer-Prize winning, muck-raking journalism like his really matter any more? And perhaps even more importantly: What drives someone to do it in the first place?

For example, we seem so much more resigned in our cynicism about our government today. In 1968, a so-called Silent Majority of Americans seemed to believe “the best” about our country, while only a fringe of young people, long-hairs and counter-culture reporters like Hersh were intent on decrying “the dark side.”  These days, after 50+ years of exposés, our hearts barely flutter as the next outrage becomes normalized almost as soon as it is flagged. 

The current administration also challenges this kind of “truth-telling” in a couple of novel ways.

It barrages the public with so many outrages that one’s focus on one of them is quickly eclipsed by its successor. It’s an attention-span issue surely, but also a bottomless pit. Even if another Hersh were able to connect-all-the-dots and establish culpability for one outrage, whoever’s tuned-in may feel hopeless & resigned instead of righteous & emboldened by the time he/she gets to the punchline. 

Moreover, while all governments want to hide their dirty laundry, the current one almost succeeds in making that impulse into a kind of virtue. For example, many Americans seem convinced when our president publicly proclaims that it is somewhere between unpatriotic to traitorous to acknowledge our history of discrimination, our economic reliance on slavery until the Civil War, our dispossession of native Americans, and the like because “everybody” wants to be uplifted “by the best in our past.” Effectively making new disclosures about bad things disfavored as a matter of public policy is fairly unprecedented in American history, except during wartime.

The further application of this “patriotic outlook” has been to erect higher barriers of secrecy and to impose harsher punishments for unauthorized disclosures by government insiders during Trump 2.0. In some ways this is just the public enshrinement of a phenomenon that’s been a truth throughout the entire Hersh era, namely, that the only ones who usually end-up being held accountable in the course of an exposé are the confidential sources and whistle-blowers.  Still, the public firings of inspectors general in nearly all governmental bodies & restricting the access for journalists in, say, the Pentagon, make the risks assumed for the sake of claiming an overwhelmed public’s awareness seem even more daunting these days.

So if that’s the case, what motivates Hersh and other investigative journalists to crawl around in our government’s most fetid basements to uncover “what’s really been going on” for the sake of a healthy democracy?

In Sy Hersh’s case, I sought the answer in a couple of recent profiles and in one long, hindsight look into his career. 

A half a year ago, two other investigative journalists (Laura Poitras & Mark Obenhaus) released an engrossing & provocative documentary called “Cover Up” about Hersh’s remarkable career. Among other things, it was short-listed for this year’s Oscars. Here’s a link to its trailer on Netflix. 

Poitras may be known to you as the award-winning journalist and filmmaker behind “Citizenfour” (about Edward Snowden’s exposure of the government’s mass surveillance) as well as “All the Beauty and the Bloodshed” (about Nan Goldin’s activism during the AID’s epidemic and her fight to expose the Sackler family’s complicity in the opioid crisis) which she co-directed with Obenhaus. In addition, I caught Poitras’s On the Media interview this week, and Obenhaus’s interview in the Times in February, both about Sy Hersh and his groundbreaking work.

Meanwhile, another attempt to sum-up Hersh’s investigative accomplishments and occasional failures was provided in 2018 by Matthew Ricketson in an Inside Story essay. 

From these viewpoints and some leaping-to-my-own-conclusions, I’ll try to resolve what makes someone like Hersh do what he does, and why such work matters today as much—if not more—than ever.

_{This is the young Sy Hersh after he won a Pulitzer Prize for his book “MyLai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath.}

“For-the-sake-of-democracy” arguments are the ones repeated most often to extoll the virtues of investigative journalism in this country. Of course, such arguments require enough citizens who are: paying attention to that reporting, able to reach a judgment about what they’ve learned, and willing to do something about it if it violates their norms, including voting against it or otherwise registering their dissent. 

Even though by some counts there may be fewer such engaged citizens today, it seems fair to conclude that whatever else was accomplished by last weekend’s No Kings rallies, at least the 8 million Americans who took to the streets are probably ringing those engagement bells today. 

Hersh, of course, has always stood squarely with those who dare “to speak truth to power,” in that sadly over-used phrase. For her part, Laura Poitras doesn’t see government secrecy, abuses of power, and vindictiveness towards sources as much different today than they have always been. Nor are investigative journalists less fearless today. Instead, she describes one perennial problem that separates the more institutional media from what she views as the far more impactful muckrakers like Hersh, along with a worrisome shift in who controls the mass media itself today as opposed to in the 1960s.

The shortcoming in her view is that too many of today’s journalists fail to describe what their reporting uncovers in a clear and honest way, leaving the far-too-common impression that they are merely government mouthpieces. For instance, if it’s torture, don’t call it “enhanced interrogation techniques” as if there were some kind of science involved. She also decries the coverage of Gaza when reporters try to make the situation palatable to everyone.

What we’re seeing in Gaza, how can we look at a population that’s being starved and civilians being bombed for two years and not call it a genocide? I just think we have to use the words that we know to describe what is happening. The erosion of trust in the media is because the public often feels lied to. They feel lied to by their government, and they feel that the press is also part of the lying.

She’s also more worried about corporate developments affecting today’s journalism than any shortage of investigative reporters today.

Currently, I’m very concerned about the capitulation of large media organizations to government pressure. Both the settlement around 60 Minutes, and Paramount and ABC not fighting for the First Amendment, I think, is the biggest threat we’re seeing. That’s coming from institutions, not from journalists doing their jobs.

But Sy Hersh never fit comfortably within corporate media, famously leaving the New York Times after his own coverage of preferential loans being received by an American business conglomerate during the 1980’s bumped up against the reality of similar loans being accepted by members of Times’ management. As a result, for the entirety of his career, Hersh has regularly gone outside & around the System for his “truths” instead of through it. 

For example, rejecting the pre-packaged sound bites his colleagues were receiving in the Pentagon briefing room during Vietnam, Hersh would listen for the idle remark in casual conversations with insiders far outside of it, finding the scent of the My Lai massacre when he heard one source say: “Well, it’s murder incorporated over there,” and then wondering like a bloodhound what was behind that tossed-off comment.

But his cultivation of sources and careful listening were only the start of it. One reviewer of the “Cover-Up” documentary commented on both “the obsessiveness” and “the painstakingness” (or doggedness & discipline to do the necessary digging) that makes an investigative journalist like Hersh “in the behavioral sense.”  At the same time, another reviewer was surprised by how reluctant Hersh has always been to put himself into his stories

Restless, kinetic, energized by the word no, he’s quick to recite the facts and loath to put himself in the story. ‘In case anyone cares, this is less and less fun,’ he says [around the mid-point of “Cover-Up”] in what appears to be two sit-down interviews at his home office, surrounded by mountains of faded yellow legal pads.

Perhaps it’s the reluctance to become any kind of celebrity in his own right that most distinguishes him from the other “most famous” investigative journalist of his age—Bob Woodward. After all it was Woodward & his pal Bernstein who not only broke the first Watergate story but who were also portrayed in “All the President’s Men” by no less than Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Ricketson’s Inside Story profile is particularly insightful about what distinguishes the two reporters. 

[I]n Donald Trump’s America, there is a strong argument that what is needed is more Hershes and fewer Woodwards….

[A] comparison of their reporting] shows Hersh hewing more closely to the promise of public interest journalism. ‘Bob has become the diarist of sitting administrations,’ says Bill Kovach, a former editor at the New York Times, ‘and Sy has continued to be the muckraker. Sy continues his outrage.’

Or, as Mark Danner, himself a respected American investigative journalist, puts it:  where Woodward relies for his disclosures on officials at the highest level of government, Hersh’s sources come from lower levels of the government and intelligence bureaucracy. ‘Where Woodward provides the deeper version of what is, essentially, the official story, Hersh uncovers a version of events that the government does not want public — which is to say, a version that contradicts the official story of what went on.’

In other words, Hersh was never an insider, playing an outside-the-system role that his targets, like Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle (himself a powerful business figure connected to the first Bush administration), ‘feared and intensely disliked,’ while Woodward’s more affable demeanor and institutional touch produced more best-selling books and fueled more frequent appearances on talk-shows. For his part, Perle once summed up their differences even more succinctly, arguing that “Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist.”

So while one always needs to proceed with caution when using autobiographical details to explain career motivations, I found it particularly revealing that Sy Hersh never learned about his father Isadore’s searing legacy until long after he had died, and then went on to render a surprisingly harsh judgment about that silence in his 2018 memoir.   

In 1941, the entire Jewish population of his father’s birthplace, the village of Seduva in Lithuania, was executed by a German commando unit aided by Lithuanian collaborators. His father had never discussed the atrocity with him in a childhood that was filled with fatherly interactions. Of this omission, Hersh’s judgment is both brutal & telling: “In his own way, Isadore Hersh was a Holocaust survivor as well as a Holocaust denier.”

It’s another way of saying “The truth can set you free” I suppose, and there are few pursuits beyond safety & sustenance that are more powerful than that. 

These days we hear ad nauseam that Americans are more concerned about the cost-of-living than any of the crimes & other outrages of our current government. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump vs. U.S. to grant the president immunity for all of his “official acts” puts the onus on identifying, exposing and prosecuting all of his “unofficial” ones.  Moreover, many have argued that Trump’s opponents would be better off “holding their powder” while trying instead to identify fresh leaders with compelling proposals to address affordability and other pressing issues like clean energy & AI’s growing impact on the American workforce. 

But should investigative journalists like Hersh similarly “hold their powder,” and what kind of exposé would make a genuine difference for the health of America’s democracy today?

To these questions, I can only answer that Hersh’s coverage of the My Lai massacre was critical in turning the American public against the War in Vietnam, while his coverage of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison similarly helped to turn pubic horror into public opposition to our War in Iraq. 

One man’s investigative journalism.

Think about how Hersh’s truth-telling—or a similar dose of truth from someone like him—might help to set us all free today.

This post was adapted from my April 5, 2026 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

The quest for greener, more responsible energy sources that crested with the international treaty signed in 2015 (the so-called Paris Climate Accords) continues in force today despite the current administration’s rejection of key findings on the harms of carbon-based fuels and its gutting of policies that the government has used to regulate them. 

It’s difficult to impossible to stop innovation that’s both economically & environmentally beneficial once it’s gained traction, and the vast, 200-square mile solar energy project that’s moving forward in an agricultural stretch of California’s Mojave Desert is but the latest demonstration of this momentum. 

Yes, the Western world is increasingly preoccupied with the costs of military build-ups (like in Europe) and strained supply chains (given the global reaction to tariffs & other trade practices). But the West’s demand for cheaper energy, it’s lingering commitment to cleaner energy & the enormous advances that China has made over the past decade in monetizing solar power have produced a change-for-the-better that simply can’t be stopped. 

It’s also a story that speaks to this time of winter.

–    because these weeks in late February have long reminded me of the awesome power that the sun always brings to drive the cold away. We’ve been battered here in Philadelphia by a succession of snow & ice storms that have created a continuous blanket of white over grounds that have seldom been dusted, let alone covered, in recent years. So now, in particular, I’m yearning for the warming powers of the sun.

–    because brighter & more light also drives away the despondency that entrenches far too easily during our darkest months, and

–    because the 24/7 sideshow of our political leaders tends to conceal (but not disrupt) the currents of progress that quietly defy their sticks & stones. 

So a story about a project that includes 200-square miles of solar panels that are helping to irrigate farms & power cities from the San Joaquin Valley fits quite comfortably within the needs of this late-winter moment.

_{The photograph up top was taken by Erlend Haarberg. This picture of a girl is care of Derrick Neill.}

The project that has launched on fallow agricultural land “on the dry side” of the Valley deserves a far better name than the Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan (VCIP) because it produces a near virtuous circle of benefits. The VCIP does this by:

–     providing new energy income to cover farmers’ losses from their fallow land while enabling them to continue producing crops like pistachios & tomatoes with the reduced amounts of water that the water authority will make available for the lands they’ll continue to farm;

–    continuing to produce valued seasonal crops domestically for domestic markets; 

–     giving an economic boost to the towns and cities that dot the Valley by sharing the VCIP’s economic benefits—including funding for schools generally & for job training in the solar industry in particular—through “community benefits packages”;

–    re-using farmlands that had already modified their desert ecosystems in a way that’s less likely to produce further environmental harm and which may be tailored to produce at least some restorative benefits in the future; all while also 

–    providing a workable model for thousands of other farms in the American West that have abandoned (or will soon be abandoning) formerly usable farmland due to declining water supplies, but that still want to afford their continued production of crops on land they’ll be able to irigate. 

Here is a link to VCIP’s website trumpeting several of its wide-ranging benefits. 

According to one recent story, not only will VCIP install solar panels for miles in every direction, it will throw off enough income to justify the installation of new, multi-billion dollar power lines to carry the 20,000 megawatts of electricity they’ll produce “on every sunny day at noon” (along with the rest of every day) to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Silicon Valley. In addition, massive batteries will store the unused power that’s generated there until it’s needed most.

These days, VCIP is just one of many American projects that are drawing increasing amounts of usable energy from the sun.

In 2025, 7% of our domestic energy supplies came from solar power and usage is expected to increase by nearly 20% this year, when it will account for 51% of all newly-installed & utility-scaled power capacity. Moreover, solar power facilities are projected to produce approximately 30% of all U.S. electricity generation by 2030.

If that’s not encouraging enough, an even more optimistic future for the solar power industry is forecast by our most notorious entrepreneur (Elon Musk), largely because he’s been frustrated in recent months by constraints in the current power grid as he contemplates building new AI-data centers with their enormous energy demands.  His frustrations have led him to ruminate about something I’d never heard about before, namely the Kardashev Scale. 

First proposed by Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev in 1964, the Kardashev Scale is a way to measure a civilization’s level of technological advancement based on the total amount of energy it can can manage to harness. The Scale categorized civilizations into three primary types: Type I (planetary), Type II (stellar) and Type III (galactic). Needless to say, Earth-bound humanity has yet to advance to even a Type I civilization, but for Musk—who actively imagines Type II & III futures along with everything else that he does—it’s only natural for him to also wonder “what kind of energy supply” can get both him and those who will consume his associated products to that civilizational milestone?

Well last September, Musk posted the following on X:

Once you understand the Kardashev scale, it becomes utterly obvious that essentially all energy generation will [one day] be solar. A relatively small corner of Texas or New Mexico can easily serve all U.S. electricity.

He goes on to tell us that he’s done the math here, before announcing how the solar collectors on his own space-based satellites will further help to provide all the power that humanity will need for millennia:

One square mile on the [earth’s] surface receives ~2.5 Gigawatts of solar energy. That’s Gigawatts with a ‘G.’ It’s ~30% higher in space. The Starlink global satellite network is entirely solar/battery powered. Factoring in solar panel efficiency (25%), packing density (80%), and usable daylight hours (~6), a reasonable rule of thumb is 3 GWh of energy per square mile per day. Easy math, but almost no one does these basic calculations.

Among other things, that easy math makes Musk confident that he can build a solar energy company out of the foundations that he’s already laid in SpaceX and in Tesla’s solar division, which currently provides rooftop solar panels to consumers along with energy storage solutions. 

Who am I to say whether Elon Musk (in full-on visionary mode) is right or wrong when he looks towards the sun and sees it as the only source we’ll need to power the future of our civilization. 

But what I can say is that solar energy projects like VCIP and the proliferation of its kind of model throughout the increasingly-dry farmlands of the American West might very well mark the next big step in our solar-powered future—whatever distain Washington currently has about an energy source that’s cheaper & cleaner than any of the alternatives.

For me at least, that’s bringing rays of sunshine into the first week of March.

This post was adapted from my March 1, 2026 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Listening to myself tell you about something that happened in 5th Grade makes me feel like it was a hundred years ago, almost lost in the mists of time.

Either the weather was bad or there was some other reason that we couldn’t go outside for recess so our teacher—Sister Dennis I think her name was—needing some way to redirect our 10- or 11-year-old restlessness, asked if we’d like to hear her read us a story.

To call our muffled response a “Yes” that day would have been generous, but that’s what she chose to hear, having no better idea about “what to do with the lot of us” under the circumstances.

The book she’d selected was “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis. and this is how it begins:

ONCE there were four children whose names were Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy. This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids.

That was really all it took to settle us down & put us on our way to finding out more about this refuge from the Blitz, the furtive games of hide & seek that took place there, and how one such game found Lucy (the youngest of the 4) hiding in a wardrobe that became a portal to a another world as she pushed her way inside and started feeling snow & ever-green branches instead of simply coats and sweaters. 

Us 5th Graders ended up having the whole book read to us during that season of grade school because every time we couldn’t go outside (and even some times when we could) we called out for it in something like a chorus, not being able to wait any longer to hear what happened next as those children met the White Witch, a fearsome Lion and a taking faun named Mr. Tumnus.

I mention all this because a new book came out recently about C.S. Lewis, his friend and Oxford University colleague J.R.R. Tolkien, and how both came to pen sagas about marvelous worlds that were more hopeful & noble & loyal than the worlds that had collided around them during World War II. This book is called “The War for Middle Earth,” and it begins with the fantasy world that Lewis called Narnia, a place “with endless winter and no spring,” and with an equally menacing one that Tolkien conjured out of hobbits, dwarves, humans & elves and their struggles to defeat the malevolent forces that had gathered around the Lord Of the Rings. 

In “The War for Middle Earth,”author Joseph Locate’s main point is that both Lewis & Tolkien wanted to bring a broken world stories that were powerful enough to re-animate human virtues like wisdom & friendship, courage & self-sacrifice we seemed at risk of losing in our modern battles of Good versus Evil.  

Both Lewis and Tolkien had fought in the Great War (1914-1918) and the experience had (in the words of one reviewer) “endowed them with a tragic sensibility and a perception of true heroism” instead of the “twin drugs of ideology and nihilism” that too many of their fellows had turned to in order to manage the pain of that barbaric conflict. Concerned that the second great war also saw too little virtue and “faith in human dignity,” Lewis came to write his Chronicles of Narnia (1950-56) and Tolkien his Lord of the Rings trilogy (1954-55). As this reviewer continued:

Much of Mr. Loconte’s history concerns Lewis’s and Tolkien’s efforts as scholars. Their positions in Oxford’s English department gave them authority to promote classic literature as a solution to modern discontent. Tolkien, a scholar of Old English, studied the ‘theory of courage’ found in poems such as the ancient epic ‘Beowulf,’ redeeming what he called the ‘noble northern spirit’ from the fascists who would pervert it. Lewis, meanwhile, sought to recover the ideas of love that animated medieval and Renaissance literature. Both authors admired the way that the medievals combined pagan virtues with Christian theology to sustain a culture that was simultaneously vital and humane.

Lewis & Tolkien believed that the West’s literary tradition provided the moral grounding that can enable individuals “in the face of death” to forsake their own safety in the struggle to save others from subjugation. In Loconte’s view, both hoped their imaginative stories would help to counter “many in the West” who had come to doubt and even resent our civilization’s ideals in their cynicism and retreat from what would have once been seen as necessary commitments. Arsenals like fellowship and a wider respect for human dignity would be necessary to counter new despots as they sought to spread their particular brands of tyranny. 

In other words: What is still worth fighting for after all the darkness and horror they had seen?

What virtues will humanity need for its next battles?

_{“Evil has reigned for100 years.” What will we need to replace it?}

_{Legions of orcs are one face of Evil in the battle for Middle Earth.}

A couple of hundred posts ago, I wrote here about an exhibit at Oxford’s Bodieian Library of watercolors that Tolkien had painted before writing either “The Hobbit” or “The Lord of the Rings” so he could envision the world that his heroes would be fighting for. In that same newsletter, I quoted from a local philosophy professor who lamented the near-impossibility of imagining such an ideal world today—our “utopia of desire”—and what it would feel like to be returning there after the additional shocks the human race has experienced in the 80 years since Lewis & Tolkien had offered us their ways back home.

He despairingly told us:

The utopias of desire make little sense in a world overrun by cheap entertainment, unbridled consumerism and narcissistic behaviors The utopias of technology are less impressive that ever now that—after Hiroshima and Chernobyl—we are fully aware of the destructive potential of technology. Even the internet, perhaps the most recent candidate for technological optimism, turns out to have a number of potentially disastrous consequences, among them a widespread disregard for truth and objectivity, as well as an immense increase in the capacity for surveillance. The utopias of justice seem largely to have been eviscerated by 20th-century totalitarianism. After the Gulag Archipelago, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the Cultural Revolution, these utopias seem both philosophically and politically dead.

That catalog of smashed ideals was compiled almost 8 years ago, before a global pandemic, growing political divisions, media’s assault on our attention spans, and the rise of artificial intelligence had defeated even more of our hopes. 

So it’s fair to ask: how much more do we need collective stories—ones that affirm the best in humanity, show us how to have courage & conviction—in our current battles against nihilism & tyranny?

Such a story might begin with our visualizing what we cherish most about our lives. For Lewis & Tolkien, it was the communal life of the countryside and the heroism that everyday people could muster in challenging times. For both, it was also courageous action emboldened by faith. 

In their respective writings, their challenge was to combine these elements into more compelling narratives than the fascists or communists had been telling. To that end, Lewis & Tolkien took what was best in the Western literary tradition and wove it into characters & plot lines that effectively “critiqued and opposed the point-blank threat of what was worst in our tradition,” as another reviewer has noted.  These sagas “made qualities like courage and fortitude deeply attractive to an otherwise skeptical generation.”

Said Lewis himself: “When we have finished [these narratives], we return to our own life not relaxed, but fortified.” 

_{The early-teen protagonists in the streaming saga “Stranger Things,” arrayed against the forces of Evil that treaten their hometown}.

By now you’ve probably gathered that I wish every unexceptional inhabitant of this troubled planet could have the benefit of new stories & sagas that could bolster the fortitude and courage they’ll need in their current struggles against cynicism, despair and resignation.

How long has it been since a story you’ve read or watched actually left you emboldened or (as C.S.Lewis put it:) “fortified” instead of merely entertained?

Late last fall, I joined the daughter of close friends who was visiting from graduate school, we got to talking about stories we’d recently enjoyed, and she strongly recommended that I watch Season 3 of “Stranger Things,” an 80’s-inspired, sci-fi/horror-saga with large doses of comic relief about a close-knit group of small-town kids who play games like Dungeons & Dragons far from the in-crowd of their middle school before mustering their talents to confront the ultimate Evil.

The recommendation came with certain demands, like watching the first 2 seasons of the show to get to know the characters and their fight against the horrors of the mirror world that exists beneath them as well as a federal government that aims to harness its potent powers. Well I took her advice, made it through the Season,1, marveled at the uptick of Season 2, and was (as promised) amply rewarded by the remarkable confrontations of Season 3.

The story profiles young heroes in impossible situations while their adolescent hormones intrude & shows their self-sacrifice and courage in genuinely terrifying circumstances, all while celebrating (in technicolor) the aspects of their town (the mall & community pool, annual fair & middle-school dance) that they love the most and rally to protect.  

The Duffer Brothers behind “Stranger Things” are not C.S.Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, but what they built in this multi-dimensional & deeply human saga about a more “contemporary” battle between Good & Evil is noteworthy, and their success as storytellers in the storytelling marketplace even more so. 

The entire 5 season franchise has gotten more than 1.2 billion views. It has become a global cultural phenomenon for younger generations that have lived much of their lives during the Great Recession, a global pandemic, through the downsides of cellphones and social media & amidst their ever growing fears about the future. If the show’s fans were looking for heroes who embodied loyalty & bravery against impossible odds they would have found them in Season 3—several of them in fact. 

So if “Stranger Things” demonstrates anything, it is the ravenous hunger that young viewers have for stories that might help them cope with the daunting array of challenges they’re facing on a daily basis. 

And while the show will likely be less fortifying for anyone over 30, I found Season 3 to be a sometimes unnerving, sometimes hilarious & often heart-rending thrill ride through some of my best memories of the 1980’s, all delivered with the soundtrack, hair, clothes, cars & destinations that made it a slice of America that actually may be worth fighting & dying for.    

“Stranger Things” is not quite the successor to the Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, but it demonstrates our burning desire for a story that can help us prevail in what is far too often a horrifying & dismaying world, 

This post was adapted from my February 1, 2026 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

More than usual, I faced a blank screen when I sat down to write yesterday.  

On the usual Saturday, I have an outline in my head, some sources down, and a bead on a compatible image or two.

Maybe, probably, it was the holiday, since I still haven’t completed everything I usually do on this day, like ruminating on those things I’m most grateful for in the past year. 

When I came upon a recent list amidst the recipes, I had to laugh when I saw that I’d made note of this one: the occasional accuracy of my intuitions. Because when you put your wiriting out there, you can never even begin without some measure of confidence. 

Which brings me to the related topic I landed upon today: How I decided what to write to you?

Some of it comes from the choices made by others.

Even though I’m reading fewer books, I still pour over the year-end booklists—for this reason of course, and also (I suppose) to feel guilty about not reading more tomes and chronicles that sound essential or fascinating.

As luck would have it, the “NYT’s 100 Notable Books for 2025,”  “WSJ’s 2025 Guide to Holiday Gift Books,” and “The Economist’s Best Books of 2025” brought me to short reviews about John Updike’s 1989 memoir “Self Consciousness” and Susan Orlean’s 2025 memoir “Joyride.” (I ordered both “for the pile,” so my guilt can be closer at hand.)

Of couse, Updike was one of America’s pre-eminent writers during much of my lifetime. I read, but didn’t get, “Rabbit Run” in high school, part of his series of droll & insightful takes on suburban life & love. As I started living what he’d written about, I grew to appreciate his Rabbit & other novels, but even more to value the economy of his wisdom when he’d pen an essay someplace or get candid in an interview and then proceed to bowl me over.

(That’s Updike, over-coming his bad teeth, psoriasis & ever-present shyness in the picture above.)  

So I was overtaken again when I came upon the following about (essentially) where he begins as a writer, describing his childhood sense “of an embowering wide world arranged for my mystification and entertainment.”

His subject matter was set out for him like a buffet, in all its “embowering” (or “embracing,” in the way that trees would) possibility, with his job to make what he could of it all, a kind of bird’s eye view one minute, more closely-observed the next, but all there for his “mystification and entertainment”—and eventually ours.

If I were so inclined (in other words), all I had to do was look at the world around me and see what’s tickling my fancy.

_{Author Susan Orlean in the middle of one of her buffets.}

Since I already knew Orlean’s “The Orchid Thief” and the non-fiction essays in the New Yorker that spawned both it and other absorbing romps, I quickly zeroed in on the review of “Joyride,” because that’s exactly what her job as a writer always felt like to me whenever she invited me along

Orlean, like Updike, confesses that she too “believe[s] the world has something to tell [her],” and her amazement at what she heard is one of the qualities that makes her writing so infectious.

For example, “The Orchid Thief” is broadly about her reporting of the 1994 arrest of an horticulturist and members of the Seminole nation for poaching rare orchids in the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve in South Florida.  But beyond its colorful cast & humorous asides, it is also brought Orlean, for the first time, face-to-face with true obsession, in this instance, that horticulturist’s quest to find & clone the rare ghost orchid for profit. 

Demonstrating how she finds what to write about, her memoir reveals that she happened upon the seeds that became “The Orchid Thief” on an airplane, where a day-old copy of the Miami Herald had been left in her seat pocket. Buried inside was a story about an upcoming trial over some valuable plants. Within days, Orlean was in Miami, at the courthouse.

While she acknowledges that she’s always been open to the thrill of discoveries like this in her story-telling, Orlean acknowledges that there’s also a different kind of writer, namely, “those who have something they want to say to the world.” In other words, it’s not the world as your oyster (waiting for you to discover its delights or ponder its mysteries), but about some internal fire that drives this different breed of writer to tell the world what’s on her (or his) mind..

One or the other of these propensities tends to announce itself early in writers (Updike’s “childhood sense”), and likely in non-writers too.  For example, I’m currently working with a physical therapist who’s so in love with the next Broadway musical, golf game or Top 10 list of horror movies that I quickly got him to admit that he’s always (“since I was a little kid”) been open to the delights his slice of the world kept offering up to him. Even more importantly, his pursuit of the next delight always seems to drive him to prescribe whatever will make David better.

As a writer, and before that, as a child, I always had that other kind of perspective, wanting to say something to the world before I ever realized that it might be listening. It was odd, because I’m hardly an extravert. But once “whatever it was” was done percolating, it always had to come out someplace, overcoming any inhibitions or stage fright that might stand in its way. 

You’ve probably noticed that many of these posts are driven by that impulse. It’s why when Kyla Scanlon wrote about how a prosperous future no longer seems evident in the broken world that we see and experience every day, I wanted to shout out, “Yes, I agree with you, Kyla!”  Since we’re supposedly so rich, I want my streets to be cleaner $ safer, my neighbors to be less anxious & more confident about the future instead of charting America’s prosperity in the cold comfort of data centers, AI chips & invisible wealth, as I wrote on this page last week (“Our Future Will Only Be Better When We Change It.””) 

It’s why I wrote about Trump here for several weeks until I convinced myself that he’s effectively done, that are wobbly institutions are still likely to prove resilient enough to blunt his most serious damage. I also kept writing about him because I wanted at least some of you to know that you’re not alone in your alarm at seeing his unprecedented misuse of our nation’s highest office, and (I’m sure) as a kind of reassurance that we (in Susan Sontag’s words) “are not accomplices” to the damage he’s causing, even though we are witnesses to it & citizens with stakes in our governance. In all these regards, Trump is lighting fewer internal fires that I need to vent about.

Yet while many of my posts are still driven by the desire to tell the world something (or to trumpet some other writer who’s doing so), I’ve also learned that I can get tired of hearing my mountain-top voice, and at such times, I try to see the world as my oyster too, like I did recently in my journey to a local gas station framed by reflections of its spiritual past  (“Is the Solution a Speed Bump?’), in this summer’s Short Stack posts (here, here and here), and when I escape into the smorgasbords of art, TV & music.  

At such times, I’m both surprised & relieved by this bit of counter-programming. It’s like surfer and art critic Dave Hickey wrote in “The Perfect Wave” (another worthwhile read):

When[ever] something that is not your thing blows you away, that’s one of the best things that can happen. It means you are something other than you thought you were.

It always feels like a revelation. New doors seem to open when I’ve nothing left to say.

This post was adapted from my November 30, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

If we’re serious about finding a unity of purpose on the direction of our country, we should step back from the moral judgments we keep making about our political opponents (“We’re good, they’re bad”)  and start putting our own disheveled houses in order. 

Fessing up to our own failings would make us feel less superior when it comes to everyone else’s failings and more willing to seek common goals. 

This is certainly true where traditional Republicans and Democrats are concerned. For the zealots on both sides on the other hand—a relatively small number of true believers at the MAGA and Progressive extremes—that kind of modest self-awareness may not be possible. 

Instead of the vast middle of American politics being endlessly roiled by the certainties of the extremes, it’s time for house-cleaning, undaunted by the fear that we’re simply enabling our foes by airing out our dirty laundry. (They already know more than we’d like to admit about our hypocrises.) 

Putting our own houses in order is the only way that “the traditionals” to the right and left of Center can set aspirational agendas unburdened by the sins of the past. 

+ + +

In that regard, let’s start today with some political soul-searching by a traditional Republican, Gerard Baker, who is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. In his Monday post—“Trump Accelerates Our Decline into Moral Relativism”—Baker became more critical of traditional Republicans like him than I’ve heard him admit to. The headline makes his bottomline point, which is that MAGA extremism has distorted thinking and cowed bravery in the Republican Center.

Moral relativism and the ratchet effect will ensure that there is always some precedent close enough to persuade people to shrug even when confronted with some evidence of genuine turpitude on their own side.

We’ve been descending this spiral for a long time, but as with just about everything to do with the gargantuan figure of Donald Trump, his behavior has accelerated the descent.

His corrosive effect on norms of ethics, language and, for that matter, conservatism, has been amplified by the eager acquiescence of the Republican Party in the process.

The party that once liked to think of itself as committed to values and principles has become the most cynical exponent of the idea that everything is relative. A cheerleading chorus of so-called conservatives in the media eased the way. Every time they are confronted with evidence of some new infamy by their president, many on the right will choose to avoid the unrewarding path of moral consistency [with bedrock Republican principles] and opt instead for the tactics of least resistance: misdirection, “whataboutism,” or simply reaching for the blinders. All of these relativist tools have been on display in the last week. [my emphasis]

Republican Senator John Thune (the Senate’s Majority Leader) has sadly become an exemplar of these tendencies during Trump 2.0. He not only is, but also looks like a traditional Republican. But when he tries to defend the on-going government shut-down he (squeamishly) sounds and looks like a MAGA puppet. “Will the real John Thune please stand up!” 

The moral relativism is abundant. As an alternative, one could say to him: “Yes, the Democrats are often hypocrites, but Republicans control not only the Presidency but also Congress (and maybe the Courts). It’s not about your “relative” purity or impurity. Just do your job, which is to keep the government up and running.” 

Gerard Baker doesn’t mention Thune or the government shutdown in his op-ed, but he does highlight the dirtiest of dirty laundry in the Republican house today: their own leader’s self-dealing and his corruption of the justice system that should be ferreting it out. The stain was painfully apparent when Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the Binance cryptocurrency exchange founder, this week. (Zhao had pled guilty to money laundering charges in 2023.) As Baker scathingly notes, this pardon came after Binance:

had been involved in a lucrative financial partnership for the president and his family that helped contribute to the $4.5 billion in wealth they have generated this year alone. Morally equivalent precedents: Hunter Biden? The Clinton Foundation? Hardly on the same scale. What we have seen this year is new levels of graft and grift. We seem to be moving rapidly toward a justice system in which the president essentially gets to decide who should be in prison. If you’re a political enemy, we’ll come up with a crime to fit your punishment. If you’re a friend, we will annul your crimes. [my emphasis]

(Helpfully, Baker also links us to a Journal article on “the recipe behind the Trump Family’s crypto riches.”)

Until other traditional Republicans like Baker come clean by signing-on to admissions of failure like this one, their attempts to improve the Republic’s health going forward will always be suspect. 

What about  traditional Democrats and their dirtiest laundry?

It is hard to say whether journalist Jeffery Toobin is a Democrat or not—he’s certainly been a thorn in their side for years, as in “CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin Calls Democrats ‘Weak and ‘Wimps’”—but my read on it is that he’s probably a member of their loyal opposition. 

In that spirit, on Halloween Toobin wrote an op-ed in the Times that billed itself as a discussion about the use of Biden’s autopen to grant clemency in the last days of the administration, but which ended up making timely remarks about Biden’s (and indeed, any president’s) mental capacity to serve in office.

It was in no small part because of “the capacity issue” that I was heartened when Biden said in March, 2020 (while campaigning for the presidency) that he saw himself as a one-term, “bridge figure” who would quikly make way for up-and-comers in his Party. So in the wake of Biden’s disastrous presidential debate in June 2024, I (along with many others) were more than a little interested in knowing when exactly, during his term in office, his faculties had begun their precipitous decline.

For example, in the final 6 months of his presidency, Toobin is rightly “troubled” by the way “the late-stage Biden White House worked.” Was “Mr. Biden [effectively] a ventriloquist’s dummy operated by his staff”?  And on the legality of his clemency decisions: “Did Mr. Biden actually authorize all the pardons that were processed by autopen?”  After reading an investigative report released by Republicans in the House and considering what Biden had said in public about it, Toobin’s conclusion is that the process “was imperfect, at best… with considerable chaos [marking] Mr. Biden’s last days in office.” 

Toobin also believes that traditional Democrats need to be as worried (if not more worried) about what was happening in the West Wing during Biden’s ENTIRE term than the administration’s opponents in Congress. 

As the June debate revealed, Mr. Biden was an 81-year-old man in decline. In later months, his staff sought ways to lighten his workload and formed, according to the committee report, ‘a cocoon around [him], thereby limiting his time spent with outer circle aides and Democratic Party leaders.

Let’s assume for a minute that Progressive Democrats are constitutionally (small “c”) unable to provide as much as a glimpse of their party’s dirty laundry to their foes. But it’s fair to wonder why less ideological Democrats haven’t been more interested in “the cocoon” around Biden, when it was first being spun, and how it effected their own work in places like Congress.

Toobin doesn’t say.  But it would be better for these representatives today (and for their standing with voters tomorrow) if they were more curious about Biden’s “fitness for office” at the very same time that they were implementing what they thought was his agenda (as opposed to some un-elected staffer’s agenda) throughout his tenure in office. 

Toobin spends his remaining ink on the difficulties around assessments of “presidential competency” going forward, in particular the advisors who provide a similar cocoon around President Trump today. 

Trump (like Biden) is an old man who’s already facing speculation about his own mental acuity. And there will be surely be future presidents who will be challenged by physical & mental incapacities while in office that are concealed from the public by protective staff members. Notes Toobin:

[I]f we are concerned that a president can be protected by a staff of sycophants, the risk now is greater than ever. No modern president has been surrounded by a more adoring staff than Donald Trump in his second term. As Mr. Trump, now 79, moves soon into his 80s, who can believe that the people around him will blow the whistle if he starts to slip?

In theory, the 25th Amendment addresses the issue of a president who is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’ But its cumbersome procedures, requiring the concurrence of the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to sideline a president, do not inspire great confidence. The amendment trusts that a president’s loyalists will put their country’s interests above their own and their patron’s; history, not just in the Biden era, suggests that it might not be the best bet.

Toobin ends on a note of resignation, that we’re all mostly “hoping for the best” on this highly consequential matter. But like traditional Democrats should be delving into its stain on Biden’s presidency (and not just letting the probe unfold as a partisan witch-hunt), tradiitional Republicans need to be (let’s call it) “attentive” to the health of their own guy or they may find themselves pilloried by voters for remaining willfully ignorant about his own incapacity.

My bottom line: traditional Democrats and Republicans alike need to be far more invested in washing their own dirty laundry than either is today. Moreover, America’s future leaders are likely to be the ones who faced their party’s liabilities squarely instead of those who did little more than spray air freshener in their direction. When it comes to the issue of a president’s ability to serve, the stakes for America could simply not be higher.

(Today’s post continues an Independent Centrist engagement argument that I’ve been trying to make since at least 2021’s “Healing Makes Listening a Cabinet-Level Priority,” (in the wake of the 2020 election) and through the summer of 2025 in pieces like “The Democrat’s Near Fatal Boys & Men Problem.” Unfortunately from then until now, most traditional members from both of our political parties have been failing us almost completely.) 

_{Returning briefly to the crypto story.}

In the five or six newsletters about political humor that I’ve written this year, South Park’s current season has certainly provided it’s share of satirical material.  Friday’s Halloween show was no exception, with a brilliant take on why none of us should be counting on the MAGA or Progressive or apolitical (“nihilist”) extremes to truly improve things when it comes to our politics. 

The first brilliant thing the South Park creators did on Friday was to acknowledge the avalanche of negativity they’ve been receiving from Trump’s Right-wing supporters (and, indeed, from the administration itself) for attacking the President & his team so relentlessly and mercilessly. Much like Trump himself has tried to co-opt his critics—by, for example, being regularly seen wearing a crown in White House memes—one of the series characters proclaims that he hates how his town of South Park has become so political this season. Laments Stan:

How many weeks has it been not dealing with one stupid thing after another? The truth is, I think a lot of people are just afraid to admit that South Park sucks now. Everyone knows it. South Park sucks now, and it’s because of all this political shit. We’re just getting totally bogged down in it. Remember when we used to do stuff? Just us guys? Ever since all this political crap took over, it’s like, what happened to us? Like Kenny, I haven’t even heard you say anything in like four months.

But instead o proposing a solution like “laying-off on Trump” or “counter-punching his opponents,” the show’s second stroke of brilliance has Stan proposing a MAGA-style solution, namely,  to launch a crypto-meme coin that simply says “South Park Sucks Now” so he can widely profile his distain while profiting mightily when his coins are sold to the simpletons he thinks agree with him.   

What a hilarious “solution” for any wannabe grifter in the Trump era. And what a lesson on the difference between sincere opposition and a stunt “that’s mostly about you.”

Just like the MAGA and Progressive wings of their respective parties often seem to be about nothing more than virtue signaling to one another, South Park has Stan proposing the perfect, self-involved solution to his problem with the show’s politics while effectively co-opting many of the satire’s nay-sayers.

Just brilliant.

This post was adapted from my November 2, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

In a short exchange with a reader about the incitement-to-violence standard, I got to talking about our jury system. I told him I’d witnessed it in action dozens of times (as a law clerk for a trial judge, as an occasional trial attorney, and finally as a member of 3 or 4 Philadelphia juries). 

The vast majority of times, I watched in fascination as an assemblage of 8 or 12 people got both the “facts” and the “law” almost exactly right by bringing their randomly-chosen perspectives along with their common-sense and community-based morality (what we can tolerate as a group, and what we can’t) to the matter of guilt or innocence. These men and women would disagree, even argue or pout at one another, but after one day or several would reach consensus and a result that invariably felt right under the circumstances.. 

Then I realized:  the vast American public determines what is acceptable and unacceptable in our poliics much like the jury system. 

It’s not always paying attention to our leaders or “the state of our nation” because it’s busy raising families, going to work, shopping, being entertained or just distracted. But when the American public starts to focus on its job of giving or withholding its consent from its representatives—because it simply can’t ignore what’s happening any longer—it can be both quick and true in its judgments. As in: Maybe I can tolerate this, but I won’t tolerate that.

After hearing the sucking sound of consent being withdrawn, the exhale of opposition can often be heard next. When tens or hundreds or millions of Americans raise their voices to say, “Hey, wait a minute,” the political consequences can be swift, harsh & certain, saying in effect: “This is the America that I’m a part of, but where we’re headed is not.”

The causes of shifts like this and when have they happened before are not just for historians to consider.

Was the moment Americans turned against the Vietnam War when we saw (and absorbed the impact of) that photograph of the naked, crying girl with napalm burns in June, 1972, or did the change of heart come somewhat earlier? When did our nation go from being against same-sex marriage to being for it? (Was it one big thing that changed our minds or a build-up of several smaller ones?) Didn’t the American public turn-as-one against Joe Biden on June 28, 2024, the day after his fateful, pre-election debate with Trump? Sometimes we know exactly when the shift occurred. Other times, our acceptance or rejection just seemed to materialize out of the ether. 

I have never watched Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, but know that his stand-up routines have skewered both Trump and our politics over the years, and how broad & deep “the comedic bond” with the American audience can be—because all of us want to be free to laugh at our leaders when they deserve it. So Trump’s and FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s ham-handed attempt to cancel Kimmel’s comedy a little over a week ago FELT (at least to me) like a turning point. As in, it feels like the American tide is turning against Donald Trump in real time. I could almost hear the whoosh of it.

But then I remembered that I’d had dreams like this before, such as after the Washington Post’s release of that infamous grabbing-women-by-their-privates tape in October 2016; while the J6 insurrection was unfolding at the Capitol in 2021; after Trump’s felony conviction in a New York Court in May of 2024. None had individually (or even as they compounded) changed our collective mind, so why would his attempt to cancel Kimmel be any different?

It’s because a week or so ago, Trump messed with American’s funny bones (and their First Amendment/free speech backstory) at a time where “cancel-culture” may be our worst damnation—due in-no-small-part to Trump himself. But despite the hypocrisy, he used the government’s coercive power to pull Kimmel off-the-air because he couldn’t take this (or maybe any) comic’s point of view. Was censoring political comedy, at long last, Trump’s “bridge too far” in the public’s mind? 

Well a couple of prominent observer/commentators thought the public finally changed its mind too. Moreover, the same shift in the American mood seems to have registered as more than a blip in national polls. Is it all just wishful thinking? Here’s what they’ve been saying over the past week.

Robert Reich worked in Washington for the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations (in other words, he’s experienced a lot of government over the years.) After leaving public service, he’s been a professor, author and commentator on American politics. Reich is also very smart in my opinion, an intelligence that’s leavened by a marvelous sense of humor. For example, being short of stature (4’ 11”) due to a genetic disorder, he called his most recent book, “Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America.”

Well Reich was at it again this week in a Substack that he sent out on Tuesday called “The Sleeping Giant is Awakening: after a week of authoritarian excess, the nation is turning on Trump.” This is how he begins his post:

Friends,

I can’t tell you exactly how I know, but after 60 years in and around politics I’ve developed a sixth sense, and my sixth sense tells me the tide is now turning on Trump.

This past week did it.

He then proceeds to list an example-a-day for the week of September 15, including Trump’s: suing the Times in a lawsuit that included “page after page of gushing praise for the president;” accusing a national reporter of “hate speech” and threatening him with consequences from Pam Bondi; having the FCC pressure broadcasters to cancel Jimmy Kimmel now, and other comic late show hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, later; threatening to prosecute political rivals (James Comey, Letia James and Adam Schiff) “even though grand juries and federal prosecutors couldn’t find any evidence of wrongdoing;” and saying at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service that he “hates his opponents” and doesn’t “want what’s best for them.”

Reich wrote: “You could almost feel the great sleeping giant of America open an eye and frown, then blink both eyes and sit up and stretch, and then roar, ‘What the hell is going on here?’” 

He went on to note protests and “boycotts” by Kimmel viewers and Disney customers, how Republican Ted Cruz spoke out against the censorship, and Disney’s bowing to the public outcry by returning Kimmel to the air. Reich recalled how the American public turned on Communist-witch-hunter Joe McCarthy’s cruelty in the 1950s, on the “white supremacists” who clobbered civil rights marchers in the 1960s,  and on Richard Nixon’s mendacity during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s.

[The sleeping giant that’s the American public] is starting to roar again now — at the sociopathic occupant of the Oval Office who won’t tolerate criticism, who in one wild week revealed his utter contempt for the freedom of Americans to criticize him, to write or speak negatively about him, even to joke about him.

Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I’ve seen a lot. I know the signs. The sleeping giant always remains asleep until some venality becomes so noxious, some action so disrespectful of the common good, some brutality so noisy, that he has no choice but to awaken.

And when he does, the good sense of the American people causes [the giant] to put an end to whatever it was that awakened him.

Ann Cox Richardson, an American historian with a pod-cast and Substack that’s followed by millions, said on YouTube in a posting called “The Tide Turned this Week” that she feels the same as Reich, while providing additional reasons. For example, she says more Americans have begun to realize:  that it’s not just “the worst of the worst” who are being targeted by ICE but also valued community members; that RFK Jr. is threatening our health with this attacks on science and the medical community; that there may be more to the Epstein files as his victims begin to speak out; that the American farmers who have long supported Trump are being devastated by tariffs and the loss of both documented and undocumented workers; and that the claw-back of federal funds has disproportionately affected rural districts making its largely Republican legislators reluctant to face their voters in town meetings.  

Cox believes that more Republicans as well as business owners are realizing that the best way to retain power or remain profitable is to stop siding with Trump’s MAGA agenda and that further cracks in his coalition will begin to show during the impeding government shut-down. But this is still a fairly small group; is enough of the American public really starting to rebel? 

This is where Nate Silver steps in. Silver has made a name for himself by “averaging” new national polls that (among other things) attempt to assess Trump’s public approval and disapproval. After the Kimmel brouhaha, Silver’s Trump approval averages dipped down fairly sharply, while his disapproval rating ticked up in the same degree.

So have we finally reached that moment where our views of everything-Trump have changed?

Reich argues that authoritarian over-reach has brought Trump to the point of no return.

Richardson piles health, economic and community concerns onto this conclusion.  

Silver’s polling data suggests that some or all of these factors have begun to move the dispproval needle.

From where I sit, I’d argue that more than any other thing it’s Trump’s failed attempt to cancel political comedy (and its free speech implications) that’s finally changed the public’s mind. 

It’s been commonly argued that Social Security is the third rail for the American public, placing in jeopardy anyone who dares to touch it. 

Well I think messing with political comedy is even more consequential in our snarky and cynical age. 

Because Trump can make fun of others but not himself, his long slide into powerlessness his finally begun–and it will only be hastened by the return of South Park–which provided a 20-minute capstone in these fateful days-after.  

_{As in: “Will Kyle [Broflovski’s Jewish] Mom Strike Gaza and Destroy a Palestinian Hospital?”}

As I’ve tried to demonstrate above, the comedy that’s aimed at our politics today is off-limits to government censorship. 

So thank God the South Park guys took all the time they needed—when many feared they’d been cancelled too—to create another, near-perfect episode in what’s become this season’s favorite opera-buffa.  

The episode’s themes included (but were not limited to): 

1.    turning nearly everything in our play-oriented society into a gambling bet; 

2.    throwing “anti-semitism” around in an irresponsible manner to juice the gamblers’ emotions (all while the Jewish holidays are on-going, no less);

3.    Trump’s attempts to abort his “butt-baby” with Satan because (as JD Vance reminds him) having a baby around will be an intrusion on fun times at Mar-A-Lago, MAGA rallies, and sporting events;

4.    how the FCC’s chair (and Kimmel nemesis) Brendan Carr comes to suffer his own form of intestinal vengeance; and last but hardly least:

5.    how the wily J.D. is methodically scheming to keep his place in The Grand MAGA Succession.

It was a lot of comic ground to cover in what was, after all, just a third of an hour. But man-o-man, was I grateful to see it in a week that seemed to have more than the usual cavalcade of horrors from Trump world. 

In this week’s Carr-Vance storyline, here is the innocent-seeming JD entering Carr’s hospital room after Carr is mistakenly stricken with a cat-borne, brain-eating disease called “Toxoplasmosis”—funny in its own right given the way the administration treats health risks—after Carr gets caught up in one of Trump’s failed attempts to induce the abortion of his misbegotten child. 

This is FCC Chairman Carr siting in his own revenge while giving a frozen “Heil” as his little visitor approaches.

And finally this is JD, his expression transformed as he mutters to Carr the now infamous words that were also spoken to Kimmel’s broadcasters Disney, Nextar & Sinclair: 

Mr Carr, why do you keep melding in my plans? I have been trying to convince the boss to get rid of this baby. I am next in line to be president. This baby cannot be born. If you continue to interfere, I will make things very difficult for you. 

We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.

JD probably won’t be bragging about the pro-Choice stance he takes here, unlike like his lame attempt to neutralize his first appearance on South Park a few weeks ago. For that matter, it’s unlikely that Carr, Trump, “special advisor” Don Jr., or Benjamin Netanyahu will be bragging about their well-deserved man-handlings either. 

And last but hardly least: thank you South Park for your powerful & long-overdue shout-out to Jewish mothers everywhere as Kyle’s mom confronts Israel’s leader about his mishigas and the impacts it’s had on her.

More evidence (if we needed it) that things actually are taking a turn for the better.

This post was adapted from my September 28, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

The killing of Charlie Kirk—the MAGA Right’s golden boy & recruitment engine—continues to reverberate on the citizen-side of my brain.

It’s first echo was the sidelining of comic Jimmy Kimmel, but we probably share the worry that the next repercussion will be a death for a death. Kirk wouldn’t have wanted that, but it seems that there are too many disaffected boys waiting in their basements to be “called-into-action” for it to be otherwise.

I tried to react to Kirk’s murder in the ways that I needed to in last week’s We’ve Entered the Arsonist’s Age but I didn’t go far enough in capturing what Kirk embodied or in describing the brakes on political violence that exist today. It feels necessary to do both before more dominoes start to fall. 

So that’s where I’ll begin this morning, before getting to comedy’s ability to mobilize an opposition and inhibit those with Strongman tendencies.

Hanging over all of these themes is a sense of foreboding and menace, like in the photo above by Dane Manary. While part of America may still be at the beach, even more of the President’s warriors have started to engage.

+ + +

As with most consequential politicians, Charlie Kirk’s outreach defied easy judgment. His cheerfully engaging young people in conversation was admirably effective. Still, he dominated nearly every exchange with talking points he’d honed hundreds if not thousands of times before while his interlocutors often sounded like they were defending their views for the very first time. The Charlie Kirk show was often more respectful than cruel in part because those who’d brought him their questions would often make fools of themselves long before he fully engaged them. Nevertheless, his patience, resolve and “willingness to put himself out there time and time again” could be a marvel to behold. 

Less marvelous were Kirk’s “enemy lists” of woke professors (some who had done no more than proclaim their solidarity with Palestinian suffering or complained about concealed weapons laws on campus). They operated as rallying cries to his more ardent followers to harass and intimidate these academics, sometimes causing personal damage that far exceeded the parameters of any fair debate. Moreover, his tarring of whole groups also seemed more injurious than necessary to make his points about, say, immigrants, abortion or Black Lives Matter. 

I also want to say a bit more about “hate speech” in general, and incitement to violence in particular. 

Under the First Amendment, even the most hateful speech—like some of the words that danced on Kirk’s grave last week—are protected, because in and of themselves, they do not constitute violence however badly they make some listeners feel.  Decades of Supreme Court decisions say so, and whatever your view of the Court today, they are likely to stand.

Among other things, that means it’s likely illegal for employers to fire employees who took to their private social media accounts to say hateful things about Charlie Kirk (because Kirk’s supporters discovered where they worked and “doxed them” to their employers). Still, it can be a somewhat hollow victory because fired employees, like those “woke” professors before them, usually suffer their harms long before their First Amendment rights can be vindicated.

In other words, just because you have a right doesn’t mean it protects you in a timely manner. You may need to fight for many expensive years before some tribunal finds that its protection “applies to you”—a time lag and personal burden that menaces our current politics. That’s because: if a big enough minority of Americans and our most powerful leaders wish to exploit these realities, Constitutionally-guraranteed free speech will increasingly be “chilled” by threats causing harms long before the necessary debates can occur.

Moreover, when Kirk invited students to target their “woke” professors or Trump invited his angriest supporters to seek his preferred justice at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, it’s been argued that they were illegally inciting their foot-soldiers to violence.  So what would it take for that charge to stick?

Last week, when I quoted Trump’s calling for “all of those” who were “responsible” for Kirk’s murder to be held accountable, he could only be found guilty of incitement if a court could infer “the intent to harm others” from his words, and some unhinged follower actually heeded his call and exacted some violent retribution in response. 

The leading Supreme Court case here is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 44 (1969), and we all need to become more familiar with its two-part standard for liability given the confusing political noise around it today. For speech to constitute “incitement,” Brandenburg requires it to be (1) directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) likely to incite or produce such action. That means “inciting speech” loses First Amendment protection when the speaker intends to cause immediate violence and is, under the circumstances, likely to succeed in provoking it.

From where I sit as a lawyer, Trump’s speech to a mob of angry supporters he had called to Washington on January 6th met the legal definition of incitement to violence and should have been, but never was punished. Since he effectively “got away with it once,” he and his least temperate proxies are continuing to poke the tinderbox of Right-wing incitement to every grievance he expresses—because that’s the end of the political spectrum in America that’s bred the most violence in recent memory according to a study by the Cato Institute, a respected libertarian think tank. 

Which brings us to the fate of political comedy these days.

Nothing bites “the man who would be king” like ridicule. Luckily, some of our democratic institutions (like stand-up comedy) are still alive and kicking–at least for now.

Comedian, and Jimmy Kimmel’s fellow talk show host, Stephen Colbert gave what was likely the most effective comic response to Kimmel’s suspension from ABC in a brilliantly modified version of the “Be Our Guest” song and dance number from Disney’s “Beauty & the Beast” a few days ago. Not only did it skewer Trump’s vanity and vindictiveness, it also effectively pilloried Disney (as ABC’s owner) and its boss Bob Iger for allowing Kimmel’s censorship.

In addition, Trump undoubtedly noticed how some British “comedians” heralded his visit to the royals this week by projecting images of him with Jeffrey Epstein onto the walls of Windsor Palace while he was about to be indulged there. 

On the other hand, South Park’s “postponement” of the episode that was expected to run this week seemed more ominous. Even Colbert’s parody failed to bite as deeply into Trump’s image of himself as Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been managing, but the South Park franchise is also owned by a media conglomerate that’s run by the son of Trump buddy Larry Ellison, so some feared interference.

While South Park said they’d “run out of time” to wrap the episode, and it’s been reported that the guys wanted “to find the right tone and approach to addressing current events,” it was hard to escape the specter of more censorship, particularly in light of the show’s most recent storyline about Trump’s amorous relationship with Satan. It should also be noted that South Park parodied Charlie Kirk in an August episode (“Clyde Donovan destroys woke liberal students” etc.), though Kirk himself (almost alone among his post-mortem defenders) admirably said that he found his portrayal in the parody to be both “awesome” & “hilarious.” 

Perhaps the last word this week about comedy’s impact on would-be authoritarians came from one of the guests on this week’s Colbert show,  New Yorker editor David Remnick. Before leading the magazine, Remnick had been a reporter in the Soviet Union in the years when it was transitioning from Gorbachev’s glasnost to Putin’s rise. Tellingly, Remnick reminded us that Putin’s very first act upon becoming Russia’s new leader was to censor one of the country’s leading parodies, and eventually the entire network that had run this troublesome puppet show. Here’s a clip of Remnick’s timely comments. 

Among other things, this parallel between Putin and Trump 2.0 also is a reminder that it’s not just the comedian but also the broadcasting network (or conglomerate with its billionaire investors) that also play a key role in crackdowns on political comedy, especially when it’s hitting its marks most effectively. 

It was the possibility of reprisal by Trump’s Federal Trade Commission (FCC) that cowed Disney/ABC and is local affiliate conglomerates (Nextar and Sinclair) to pull Jimmy Kimmel off the air despite the non-existent First Amendment grounds for doing so. All of these companies have upcoming mergers that need FCC approval, and both Nextar and Sinclair need FCC authorization to buy more than the currently mandated maximum of affiliate television stations so they don’t “unfairly dominate” their particular markets. By kowtowing to Trump’s wishes in July (“Kimmel should be the next to go”), all three corportations hope to curry favor with the FCC and get any “problems” waived.

Moreover, media conglomerates and their billionaire investors will continue to play an outsized role in the censorship of comics in particular as well as in the reporting of “the news” more generally. Because while his ultimate aims may never be realized, the aforementioned Larry Ellison—who already is a major stakeholder (through his son) in CBS/Paramount, the company that recently cancelled Colbert’s contract for another year—is also looking to acquire CNN, HBO and a major stake in TikTok. As an essayist in the Times noted on Thursday: 

If all goes as anticipated, this tech billionaire, already one of the richest men in the world and a founder of Oracle, is poised, at 81, to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen….

Along with his son, David, he could soon end up controlling a powerful social media platform, an iconic Hollywood movie studio and one of the largest content streaming services, as well as two of the country’s largest news organizations. Given Mr. Ellison’s friendship with, and affinity for, Donald Trump, an increasingly emboldened president could be getting an extraordinarily powerful media ally — in other words, the very last thing our country needs right now.

Once again, Ellison’s ambitions may never be realized, but the trend lines are clear. Almost all of our channels of information are controlled by billionaires who seem eager to do Trump’s bidding, either because they share his grievances or are willing to do whatever’s required to secure government backing for their business objectives. This also goes for Elon Musk and Twitter/X, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook/ Instagram, and Jeff Bezos with the Washington Post. Of these, Musk seems most aligned with Trump’s desire to crack down on speech that’s critical of his governance, though all have enormous incentives “to go along to get along” because they (along with their investors) want profits instead of battles over the First Amendment.

So will our American comics have the last laugh?

If we follow the Putin analogy, the only places where you can find Russian comics (or a free press) these days are in places like the Baltic states and the Netherlands. And whether you call them oligarchs or billionaires, both Putin and Trump prefer to surround themselves with men who manage large segments of their respective economies in the ways that they want them to be managed.

For America, that means getting the information (including the comedy) we both want and need may increasingly depend on whether folks like the Ellisons believe in a free press and appreciate the liberating qualities of political humor. 

This post was adapted from my September 21, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

I learned something that made me smile this week. 

An innovator at the leading edge of American education and technology (or “ed-tech”) named Steve Hargadon picked up on a thesis I’d advanced some time ago in “The Amish Test & Tame New Technologies Before Adopting Them & We Can Learn How to Safeguard What’s Important to Us Too” and applied it to the use of AI in our classrooms today.

For both better and worse, we’ve let marketers like Google (in search), Facebook (in social media), and Apple (in smart phones) decide how we integrate their products into our lives—usually by dropping them on top of us and letting each new user “figure it out.”

But instead of being left with the hidden costs to our privacy, attention and mental health, we could decide how to maximize their benefits and limit their likely harms before we get hooked on these products, the types of assessments that groups like the Amish always undertake —as another innovator in this space (Wired co-founder Kevin Kelly) noted several years ago.

To further the discussion about our use of technology generally and ed-tech in particular, I’ll briefly review the conclusions in my Test & Tame post and summarize a more recent one (“Will AI Make Us Think Less or Think Better”), before considering Hargadon’s spot-on proposals in “Intentional Education with AI: The Amish Test and Generative Teaching.”

The traditional Pennsylvania Amish work their farms and small businesses at a surprisingly short distance from Philadelphia. When I venture out of town for an outing it’s often to Lancaster County, where the car I’m in is quickly cheek-to-jowl with a horse and buggy, and families hang their freshly washed clothes on lines extending from back doors instead of cramming them into drying machines. It’s hard to miss their strikingly different take on the “modern conveniences” that benefit as well as burden the rest of us. What Kelly and others pointed out was that the Amish manage their use of marvels like cars or dryers as a community, instead of as individuals.

I described the difference this way:

As consumers, we feel entitled to make decisions about tech adoption on our own, not wishing to be told by anybody that ‘we can buy this but can’t buy that,’ let alone by authorities in our communities who are supposedly keeping ‘what’s good for us’ in mind. Not only do we reject a gatekeeper between us and our ‘Buy’ buttons, there is also no Consumer Reports that assesses the potential harms of [new] technologies to our autonomy as decision-makers, our privacy as individuals, or our democratic way of life — no resource that warns us ‘to hold off’ until we can weigh the long-term risks against the short-term rewards. As a result, we defend our unfettered freedom until we start discovering just how terrible our freedom can be.

By contrast, the Amish hold elaborate “courtship rituals” with a new technology before deciding to embrace some or all of its features—for example sharing use of the internet in a device that all can access when its needed INSTEAD OF owning your personal access via a smart phone you keep in your pocket. They reach a consensus like this from extensive testing of smart phone use & social media access within their community, appreciating over time its risks in terms of “paying attention” generally, or “self-esteem among the young” more particularly, before a gatekeeper (like a bishop) decides what, if any, accommodation with these innovations seems “good” for all.

The community’s most important values are key to arriving at this “testing & taming” consensus. The Amish openly question whether the next innovation will strengthen family and community bonds or cause users to abandon them. They wonder about things as “small & local” as whether a new technology will enable them to continue to have every meal of the day with their families, which is important to them. And they ask whether a phone or social media platform will increase or decrease the quality of family time together, perhaps their highest priority. The Amish make tech use conform to their values, or they take a pass on its use altogether. As a result,  

the Amish are never going to wake up one day and discover that a generation of their teenagers has become addicted to video games; that smartphones have reduced everyone’s attention span to the next externally-generated prompt; or that surveillance capitalism has ‘suddenly’ reduced their ability to make decisions for themselves as citizens, shoppers, parents or young people.

When I considered Artificial Intelligence’s impacts on learning last month, I didn’t filter the pros & cons through any community’s moral lens, as in: what would most Americans say is good for their child to learn and how does AI advance or frustrate those priorities? Instead, I merely juxtaposed one of the primary concerns about AI-driven chatbots in the classroom with one of their most promising up-sides. On the one hand, when an AI tool like ChatGPT effectively replaces a kid’s thinking with its own, that kid’s ability to process information and think critically quickly begins to atrophy. On the other hand, when resource-rich AI tutors are tailored to students’ particular learning styles, we’re discovering that these students “learned more than twice as much as when they engaged with the same content during [a] lecture…with personalized pacing being a key driver of success.”

We’re also realizing that giving students greater control over their learning experience through “personalized on-demand design” has:

allowed them to ask as many questions as they wished and address their personal points of confusion in a short period of time. Self-pacing meant that students could spend more time on concepts they found challenging and move quickly through material they understood, leading to more efficient learning….

Early experience with Ai-tutors has also changed the teacher’s role in the classroom. While individualized tutoring by chat-bots will liberate teachers to spend more time motivating students and being supportive when frustrations arise, 

our educators will also need to supervise, tweak and even design new tutorials. Like the algorithms that adapt while absorbing new data, they will need to continuously modify their interventions to meet the need of their students and maximize the educational benefits.

Admittedly, whether America’s teachers can evolve into supervisors and coaches of AI-driven learning in their classrooms—to in some ways, become “even smarter than [these] machines”— is a question “that will only be answered over time.”

Meanwhile, Steve Hargadon asks an even more fundamental question in his recent essay. Like the Amish, he wonders:

What is our most important priority for American students today, and how can these new, AI capabilities help us to produce the adutls that we want and that an evolving American community demands?

_{In what I call his “foggy window paintings,” photographer Jochen Muhlenbrink
finds the clarity through the condensation (here and above). I borrowed his inspiration
in a photo that I took of our back door one night a few years back (below).}

Hargadon begins by acknowledging a lack of consensus in the American educational community, which startled me initially but which I (sadly) came to realize is all-too-true.

Unlike most Amish communities, American education is “a community of educators, students and stake-holders” in only the loosest sense. It’s also an old community, set in its ways, particularly when it comes to public education (or “the educating” that our tax dollars pay for). Writes Hargadon:

Here’s an uncomfortable truth: traditional schooling, despite promises of liberating young minds, has always excelled more at training compliance than fostering independent thinking. While we often claim otherwise, it’s largely designed to create standardized workers, not creative thinkers.

Unless we acknowledge this reality, we’ll miss what’s really at stake with AI adoption. Unexamined AI use in an unexamined education system will amplify these existing flaws, producing students who are even less self-directed and capable. The temptation for quick AI-generated answers, rather than wrestling with complex problems, threatens the very traits we want in our future adults: curiosity, agency, and resilience. (emphasis added)

If we examine the American education system and consider it as a kind of community, it quickly becomes apparent that it’s a much more diverse and divided in terms of its priorities than the Amish.

Moreover, because non-Amish Americans often seem to love their individual freedoms (including choosing “what’s good” for their children), more than the commitments they share (or what’s best for all), the American educational community has often seemed reluctant, if not resistant, to accepting the guidance or governance of a gate-keeper in their classrooms.

So while some of us prefer tech-tools that get students to the right answers (or at least the answers we’ll test for later), others prefer fostering a vigorous thinking process wherever it might lead. 

Hargadon, along with me and the AI-tutor developers I wrote about in July clearly prefer what he calls “generative teaching,” or building the curious and resilient free-agents that we want our future adults to be. So let’s assume that we can gather the necessary consensus around this approach—if not for the flourishing of our children generally, but because an increasingly automated job market demands curiosity, resilience and agency for the jobs that will remain. Then “the Amish test” can be put into practice when evaluating AI-tools in the classroom.

Instead of asking: Will this make teaching easier [for the teachers]?
Ask: Will this help students become more creative, self-directed, and capable of independent thought?

Instead of asking: Does this improve test scores?
Ask: Does this foster the character traits and thinking skills our students will need as adults?

With their priorities clear, parents and students (along with American education’s many other stakeholders) would now have a “test” or “standard” with which to judge AI-driven technologies. Do they further what we value most, or divert us from a goal that we finally share?

To this dynamic, Hargadon adds a critical insight. While I mentioned the evolving role of today’s teachers in the use of these tools, he proposes “teaching the framework” to students as well. 

Help students apply their own Amish Test to AI tools. This metacognitive skill—thinking about how they think and learn—may be more valuable than any specific technology…

[By doing so,] students learn to direct technology rather than be directed by it. They develop the discernment to ask: ‘How can I use this tool to become a better thinker, not just get faster answers?

When this aptitude finally becomes engrained in our nation’s classrooms, it may (at last) enable Americans to decide what is most important to us as a country—the commitments that bind us to one another, and not just the freedoms that we share—so we can finally start testing & taming our next transformational technology on how it might unify the American people instead of divide us.

For the past 4 months, I’ve been reporting on the state of American democracy’s checks & balances because nothing should be more important to our work as citizens than the continuing resilience of our democratic institutions. And while I assumed there might be some “wind-down” in executive orders and other actions by the Trump White House in the last few weeks of August, the onslaught in areas big & small continued to challenge our ability to respond to each of them in any kind of thoughtful way.

Other than mentioning this week’s bombing of an unidentified vessel in the the Gulf of Mexico; threat of troops to Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans; turmoil at the Centers for Disease Control; immigration raid on a massive EV plant in Georgia; more urging that Gaza should be turned into the next Riviera; the president’s design of a new White House ballroom; and Vladimir Putin’s repudiation of America’s most recent deadline on Ukraine, Trump’s leadership today faces 2 crossroads that may be even more worthy of your consideration.

_{At the Department of Labor in Washington D.C. this week}

1.    What we’re seeing & hearing is either a fantasy or a preview.

In a subscriber newsletter from the New York Times this week, columnist Jamelle Bouie writes:

The administration-produced imagery in Washington is… a projection of sorts — a representation of what the president wants reality to be, drawn from its idea of what authoritarianism looks like. The banners and the troops — not to mention the strangely sycophantic cabinet meetings and news conferences — are a secondhand reproduction of the strongman aesthetic of other strongman states. It is as if the administration is building a simulacrum of authoritarianism, albeit one meant to bring the real thing into being. No, the United States is not a totalitarian state led by a sovereign Donald Trump — a continental Trump Organization backed by the world’s largest nuclear arsenal — but his favored imagery reflects his desire to live in this fantasy.

The spectacle that falsifies reality is nevertheless a real product of that reality, while lived reality is materially invaded by the contemplation of the spectacle and ends up absorbing it and aligning itself with it,’ the French social theorist Guy Debord wrote in his 1967 treatise ‘The Society of the Spectacle,’ a work that feels especially relevant in an age in which mass politics is as much a contest to construct meaning as it is to decide the distribution of material goods.

2.    Trump seems to be dealing with everything but “pocketbook issues”—or (in James Carville’s famous words during the 1992 presidential election), “It’s the economy, stupid.”

This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that after trending up in June and July, consumer sentiment dropped nearly 6% in August according to the University of Michigan’s “closely watched” economic sentiment survey. “More U.S. consumers now say they’re dialing down spending than when inflation spiked in 2022,” the article says. “Over 70% of people surveyed from May to July plan to tighten their budgets for items with large price increases in the year ahead….”

In a rejoinder, columnist Karl Rove mentioned a new WSJ/National Opinion Research Center poll that shows “voters are sour about their circumstances and pessimistic about the future.” As we head into the fall and towards the mid-terms next year, Rove opines: “It’ll take a lot more than happy talk” to counter these impressions. “People must see positive results when they shop, fuel up their cars, deposit paychecks and glance at their retirement accounts.”

As of this week, there is no sign that any plan for economic stability or growth is on the horizon, forecasting even more contentious, unsettling & expensive times ahead.

This post was adapted from my September 7, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

Holding two opposing thoughts in your mind at the same time is to experience “cognitive dissonance.” 

Being of two minds about your beliefs, ideas or values can be stressful and some find it difficult to live with the uncertainty. However, others have argued that remaining curious and wanting to learn more about what’s behind a dissonance of thoughts is a positive sign—if you’re to believe these much quoted words from F. Scott Fitzgerald.  

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

While I was stewing under the heat dome last week, I was struck by the extent of my cognitive dissonance about my soon-to-come, AI-driven world. I’m stressed about the imminence of devices that will put as many external brains as I can accommodate into the palm of my hand in about a year and a half. 

As you know, I’ve expressed my awe as well as trepidation about this development several times before. 

It’s cognitive dissonance for me (Luddite vs. Brave Pioneer) because of the consequences involved, because I fully agree with the observer who noted this week:  “we’re not just building new tech, we’re rethinking the role of humans in systems.”  Let me repeat that.

We’re not just building new tech, we’re rethinking the role of humans in systems.

One of the uncertain frontiers for AI-driven tools like ChatGPT is in our schools, those learning environments where student brains are still developing. An essay this week and a recent study make a strong (early) case for the disaster we might expect. When students use a tool like ChatGPT to write their papers and respond to class assignments, their critical-thinking and argument-assembly skills either never develop at all or quickly begin to atrophy.

At some point in the arc of my education and yours, pocket calculators became ubiquitous. I already knew how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, but no longer needed to do so manually. By the time that happened, my basic calculation skills were so brain-embedded that I could still do all of those things without my short-cut device. But what was it like for those who never embedded those aptitudes in the first place?

Given the sudden availability of AI-driven personal assistants, are today’s students at risk of never embedding or retaining how to think through, express and defend their ideas? How to construct arguments and anticipate rebuttals? How to find their commitments and form an opinion?  Such devices could change their’s (and our) experience of being human.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday by Allysia Finley brings a fine point to these questions. She argues that in the brave new world where “smart computers” demand even smarter humans, tools like ChatGPT are effectively “dumbing us down” by enabling “cognitive offloading”—or allowing a readily available device to do our thinking for us. The risk (of course) is that we’ll end up with too many humans who can’t keep up with—let alone control—the increasingly intelligent computers that are just over the horizon. 

The real danger is that excessive reliance on AI could spawn a generation of brainless young people unequipped for the jobs of the future because they have never learned to think creatively or critically…[However] workers will need to be able to use AI and, more important, they will need to come up with novel ideas about how to deploy it to solve problems. They will need to develop AI models, then probe and understand their limitations.

(I don’t know which dystopia fills Finley’s imagination, but in mine I’m seeing the helpless/mindless lounge-potato humans in the Pixar classic Wall-E instead of Arnold struggling to confront Skynet in The Terminator.)

A student brain continues to develop until he or she is in their mid-20s, “but like a muscle it needs to be exercised, stimulated and challenged to grow stronger.” Chatbots “can stunt this development by doing the mental work that builds the brain’s version of a computer cloud….”

Why commit information to memory when ChatGPT can provide answers at your fingertips? For one thing, the brain can’t draw connections between ideas that aren’t there. Nothing comes from nothing. Creativity also doesn’t happen unless the brain is engaged. Scientists have found that ‘Aha!’ moments occur spontaneously with a sudden burst of high-frequency electrical activity when the brain connects seemingly unrelated concepts.

With AI-driven devices in the palms of our hands, Finley worries that humanity will have fewer of those experiences going forward.

This week, Time Magazine reported on a new study from MIT’s Media Lab whose results so alarmed its lead investigator that she published its results despite the relatively small sample-size in her study and its lack of peer review. 

The study divided 54 subjects—18 to 39 year-olds from the Boston area—into three groups, and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s search engine, and nothing at all, respectively. Researchers used an EEG to record the writers’ brain activity across 32 regions, and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and ‘consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.’ Over the course of several months, ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy-and-paste by the end of the study.” [emphasis mine]

The researchers also suggested that the use of AI-driven tools which rely on LLMs (or large language models) can harm learning, especially for users whose brains are still developing—because ”your brain does need to develop in a more analog way.”

Both the Op-ed and MIT study examined the use of ChatGPT without either supervision or guidance from those who know how to use these tools to enhance instead of merely “off-load” the learning experience. Both assume that this AI assistant was merely asked to respond to a particular assignment without further exchange between the human and the device. So while their alarm deserves our attention, more interactive and better supervised teaching tools are attempting to harness AI’s awesome power to enhance (as opposed to degrade) cognitive abilities.  

For example, some other articles that I read this week describe how AI-driven tutors can not only increase highly valuable one-on-one learning experiences in the classroom but also enable students to learn far more than previously when interaction with such a “resource-full” device is tailored to their particular needs and learning styles.

The first encouraging story about AI tutors came from the World Economic Forum, writing about a Chinese program that aimed to find more qualified teachers, particularly in the countryside. As reported, some of the solution was provided by a company incongruously named Squirrel AI Learning.

This educational technology company tested students with a large adaptive model (LAM) learning system that “combines adaptive AI—which learns and adapts to new data—with education-specific multimodal models, which can process a wide range of inputs, including text, images and video.”  With new student profile information in hand, Squirrel created lesson plans that comprised “the most suitable learning materials for each student” with the aid of those external inputs, including: 

data from more than 24 million students and 10 billion learning behaviours, as well as ‘wisdom from the very best teachers from all over the world,’ according to founder Derek Haoyang Li….

With the enthusiasm of a pioneer, he told the Forum a year ago that he believes its AI tutor “could make humans 10 times smarter.”

Meanwhile a story in Forbes about a Harvard study was nearly as enthusiastic. 

The researchers concluded that new AI models “may usher in a wave of adaptive [tutor] bots catering to [a] student’s individualized pace and preferred style of learning.”  These tutoring models are engineered to include the best teaching practices and tactics, including: 

• proactively engaging the student in the learning process;
• managing information overload;
• supporting and promoting a growth mindset;
• moving from basic to complex concepts, while preparing for future units;
• giving the student timely, specific and accurate feedback and information;
• while enabling the learner to set their own pace.

The study’s findings indicated that AI-tutored students “learned more than twice as much as when they engaged with the same content during [a] lecture…[with] “personalized pacing being a key driver of success.”

Moreover, giving students greater control over their learning experience through “personalized on-demand design”:

allowed them to ask as many questions as they wished and address their personal points of confusion in a short period of time. Self-pacing meant that students could spend more time on concepts they found challenging and move quickly through material they understood, leading to more efficient learning….

As reported by Fox News in March, a Texas private school’s use of AI tutors has rocketed their student test scores to the top 2% in the country. With bots furthering academic learning, teachers can spend their hands-on time with students providing “motivational and emotional support.” The school’s co-founder said: “That is really the magic in our model.” 

While reading these AI-tutor stories, I realized that the new role for teachers in decades to come is not merely to motivate students and be supportive; our educators will also need to supervise, tweak and even design new tutorials. Like the algorithms that adapt while absorbing new data, they will need to continuously modify their interventions to meet the need of their students and maximize the educational benefits. 

In other words, they will need to be even smarter than the machines. 

Whether American teachers can surmount that tech-intensive hurdle is a question that will only be answered over time, but advances like the coming ubiquity of AI-tutors and the student performance gains that are likely to follow might encourage us to pay for greater tech proficiency on the part of teachers, to enable them to actually be  “mechanics” and “inventors” whenever adaptive learning models like these are deployed. 

As for my dissonance between the risks of over-reliance on large language models like ChatGPT and the promise of integrating adaptive learning models like AI-tutors in our classrooms, I guess I ended the week with enough optimism to believe that while some of our brainpower will be dissipated as the lazy among us forget how to think, far more in the generations that follow will become smarter than we ever imagined we could be.

+  +  +

The photos in this week’s post were taken of Lomanstraat, a street in Amsterdam, during the spring, summer and fall. These trees weren’t pruned to grow at an angle, instead they grew naturally towards the limited band of light. 

Here are this week’s comment(s), link(s) and image(s) regarding the state of our governance in light of new developments over this past few days.  

1.    With the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, our president’s penchant for overstatement (“obliteration”) and vanity (the NATO chief’s feeling he needed to call him “Daddy”) makes our country vulnerable to being strung along (when our leader acts like a 2-year old with no patience) as well as manipulated (by whichever foreign leader is the best “Trump whisperer”?). Do Russia or China (or Canada, for that matter) seem to you to be cowed into submission—or even cooperation—by these antics and proclivities? The risk is that little will be gained, and much will be lost in this kindergarden of foreign policy when Trump’s dust finally settles.

2.    Besides his order to drop several bunker-busting bombs from American planes that had flown half-way around the world, another development of note this week came from the Supreme Court before it withdraws into its cone of silence for the next couple of months. It marked, of course, the high Court’s preventing any federal court in the future from entering an injunction (or stop order) regarding Trump’s executive actions that has nationwide effect.

Americans can still appeal to their local federal district court for (or against) an injunction in that jurisdiction, but another district court a few counties over can makes its own (and sometimes different) ruling about the same executive action. Commentators are in a lather, mostly because Trump’s next hair-brained executive order can’t be stopped nationwide by some plaintiff who finds a cooperative district court judge. For what it’s worth, I am less concerned than many of the bedwetters about this. 

The SCOTUS ruling in CASA Inc. won’t materially advance Trump’s agenda as much as invite a chaos of conflicting lower court actions which will make the fate of his various proclamations as unclear as most of them are already. Months or years from now, each instance of conflicting lower court rulings will make their way to the Supreme Court—along the same path that nationwide injunctions get there now—and a final ruling. In the meantime, CASA inc. means more of the same uncertainty and confusion instead of giving a material boost to the Strongman’s power. 

Here’s a link to CBS News coverage of the ruling for additional reactions.

3.     This from the NYT editorial board yesterday about Trump’s big beautiful tax reduction bill and the explosion in new interest payments it will add to the national debt. (For the first time in American history, interest payments on the debt will be greater than any other national expenditure, except for Medicare, if this bill becomes law):

The expected increase in the debt is particularly absurd because the government would borrow much of the money from the same people who got the biggest tax cuts from the bill. Roughly half of the government’s debt typically is sold to American investors, and those investors are disproportionately affluent. When the government borrows from them rather than raising taxes, it is getting the same money from the same people on less favorable terms. Instead of taxing the rich, the government pays them interest.

4.     Dictator Approved Statue appears without identifying its donor on the Capitol Mall this week. It’s not a sign of full-blown resistance, but it’s another sign of life from his opponents.

This post was adapted from my June 29, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.

This week, the ironies were hard to miss. 

At exactly the same time that our president was yammering on about how Russia and Ukraine were “boys being boys” and still needed to fight it out before his peacemaking skills could save the day, he and “the world’s richest man” were devolving into their own dogfight, although in that instance it was harder to discern who’d be saving the day once the pair of them had exhausted themselves.

What this special military operation and schoolyard altercation superficially had in common were the assumptions that “this is just what boys do to one another when their emotions get the better of them,” that they’ll stop beating up on one another eventually, and that such periodic carnage is a pre-requisite for finally moving on.

In the dog-eat-dog world of Putin, Trump and Musk, that behavioral analysis crowded out other glosses on what’s really going on here. After Trump handed us this primer on masculine behavior, it was a further irony that Nate Silver (best known as the New York Times polling guru) gave us his own psychological insights about the boys & men who delivered the 2024 election to Trump and (more importantly) what the Democrats need to understand about this cohort going forward if they’re to have any chance of winning future elections, 

Silver wants answers—and I do too—because any resistance to our Family Strongman is likely to fail as long as boys & men continue to view his alternatives more negatively. With Silver providing the statistical support, we’re finally able to probe deeper than the usual knee-jerk reactions to what everyone’s witnessed about “boys will be boys” this week.

Voters who happen to be boys or men are more likely than progressive critics to see that some quantum of aggressive risk-taking is just part of the male package, “a fact of life” instead of a deplorable choice. Because too many Democrats fail to accept boys & men “for who they are,” the party of Biden, Obama and Clinton has become more openly hostile to what it views as the “toxic” hot-wiring of half of the electorate.

So how deep is this problem and how should the Democrats reconstitute themselves to deal with it?

Before we get to Silver’s numbers (along with his and other’s interpretation of them), it’s probably worth recalling my post from February, “Too Many Boys & Men Are Failing to Launch,”where author Richard Reeves also approached the biases of today’s Democratic Party pretty directly: 

“There was not really an alternative [to the Trump-Musk view of masculinity] put in front of them….In the final stages of the campaign, young men were being urged to vote for the Democrats if they love the women in their lives [which was essentially a pro-Choice argument], and that’s not good enough. 

“It’s not to say that we don’t care about the other people in our lives, but you are essentially asking men to vote for Democrats because the Democrats stand for women. Well, that’s a flawed political strategy.”

But where Reeves flags part of the problem, Silver sarcastically observes that you can grasp the extent of the disconnect “by, y’know, actually looking at the polling data instead of relying on the stereotypes that Villagers [his name for Progressives] have about young men.”

At this point, I should probably repeat a prior disclaimer: that advocating for boys & men shouldn’t come at the expense of girls & women. There is no good reason that each of the sexes can’t thrive in a political context and in every other corner of American life. Unfortunately, advocacy for boys & men sometimes triggers misogynist resentments that are as unhelpful as blanket charges of toxicity.

So what’s really happening here? Silver relies on polling for the starting point of his analysis:  that in the 2024 election, “essentially all of the decline that Harris experienced relative to Biden [in 2020] came from boys & men.”

It’s not that all boys & men rejected the Democratic candidate, just enough of them for Harris to lose the election. (And because none of the observations here have the precision of science, it is likely that at least some of Harris’s rejecters could abide neither a woman nor a black woman as their candidate.) But Silver argues there are two “mistakes”—involving the “personality traits” of boys & men—that also account for the sharp decline in this cohort’s support for Democrats.

Mistake #1 has Democrats “missing that young men take a more risk-on view of the economy.”  Turned-off by a nanny-state with expensive safety nets for every conceivable limitation or burden, Silver argues that many boys & men see Democrats “as what in the poker world we’d call ‘nits’: neurotic, risk-adverse, sticklers for the rules, always up in everyone’s business.” In other words, many boys & men prefer self-reliance to systemic excuses; fewer rules and regulations instead of more of them; and having their governors leave them alone instead of constantly trying to improve things for them. 

And when it comes to risk in particular, Silver writes:

In my research, I found that risk tolerance is something of an understudied personality trait, but the two truisms are that men generally have a higher risk tolerance than women and younger people are more risk-tolerant than older ones….

The messages Democrats are proposing tend to emphasize security — minimizing downside risk — above the opportunity to compete and maximizing upside outcomes…So when [the progressive] Villagers design messages to win back these young men, I suspect a lot will be lost in translation. Just being more chill, being wary of progressive-coded messages that seem to impede competition and risk-taking, and recognizing that gender is a touchier subject than race, could be better than hiring a bunch of influencers who are trying to start a political conversation these men aren’t really seeking out.

This recommendation goes some way towards explaining why so many boys & men preferred a “successful businessman” (Trump) or “outside-the-box entrepreneur (Musk) to someone like Harris, whose only jobs have been in government.  Of course, whether enough of those trying to steer the Democratic Party in more productive directions can actually see these kinds of solutions through their stereotypes about boys & men remains unclear.

Mistake #2 that Democrats have been making delves even deeper into the personality traits that differentiate boys & men from girls & women, once again with supporting data that Silver gathered. 

In news stories that have appeared in recent years, there has been the strong suggestion that boys & men are having as many mental health problems as girls & women due to social-media and smart-phone addictions. Silver (and his data) along with a related article which is delightfully entitled “According to Study, Young Men Are Not Mentally Ill Enough to Vote Democrat,” take issue with that premise.

Silver writes:

[T]he young men that Democrats have trouble with aren’t necessarily the ones who have been captured by the conservative ‘manosphere’ or who are looking for a helping hand. Rather, it’s those who report relatively high mental health and see Democrats as being too neurotic and perhaps constraining their opportunity to compete and reap the rewards of their work.

The underlying data points also tell him that “in the United States, higher self-reported mental health is strongly correlated with holding conservative political views.” [emphasis mine]

Silver graphs a long-standing mental health gap between boys & men, on the one hand, girls and women, on the other, over the past hundred years—with the gap widening measurably when you get to Milennials and Gen Z.

And on the correlation between being mentally healthy and having conservative views, Silver looked at the entire population regardless of sex.

The companion commentary with the provocative title is from OutKick.com, a sports, news, and entertainment website known for its “in depth coverage” on a range of topics. The site has a conservative bent and was recently acquired by Fox News. While I view Silver (and he seems to view himself) as “left-leaning,” there is no sunlight between conservative OutKick and Silver on the Democrat’s boys & men quandary. 

Here’s the closing (free) advice from OutKick for Democrats who (given the condescending heights they inhabit) the site frankly doubts they’ll be able take:

“The Democrats don’t need to lean into fake machoism to regain support among young men. However, the party does need to pivot–dramatically.

“One idea: stop telling white straight young men that they are privileged and must atone for it. Stop trying to convince them to move out of the way for women, gay men, and trans people because it’s their turn.

“There are no turns in a meritocracy.

“Most importantly, stop trying to shame men for being men…

 “A good rule of thumb: if your candidate is too self-important and beta to sit down with… Joe Rogan, don’t expect to perform well with Gen Z men.

“In other words, don’t expect the Democrat Party to address its disconnect with young men by 2028. Just look at the list of early Democratic frontrunners—from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Kamala Harris, from Gavin Newsom to Pete Buttigieg.

“Not exactly a quartet of people who young guys would want to sit and have a chat with, now is it?”

+  +  +

Two parting notes before turning to the news stories that seemed most pertinent to being a good citizen this week:

There was a well-reported essay in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal about how boys & young men are discovering their roles and responsibilities as future providers, husbands and fathers in church-run community programs. I recommend “A Church’s Campaign to Teach Lost Boys How to Be Men.”  

Finally, the image up top, which I call “Age of Kings,” was seen plastered on a Philadelphia street sign this week and posted on IG @streetsdept.

+ + +

This week’s links and images about how our Family Strongman is altering the checks and balances we use to govern ourselves begins with the little-known-until-recently IT company and government contractor called Palantir.

Among other things, Palantir products are data gatherers/organizers and threat-assessment tools. In recent days, the company has been accused by the New York Times and others of invading citizen privacy given the ways that its tools are being used by the current administration. My view: the reporting has been heavy on foreboding and light on facts thus far, but given Trump’s penchant for pursing enemies and the Supreme Court’s ruling this week that DOGE can have access to the Social Security Administration’s  “non-anonymized” personal information (some say, to “curate detailed portraits of Americans based on government data”), the current administration’s use or misuse of Palantir’s tools should be monitored closely by all who take their Constitutional protections seriously.

1.    You can gain some of the basic information about Palantir’s expanded work in this May 30 article in the New York Times(“Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans”) along with this multi-part tweet on X, posted by a former Palantir executive who argues that some of the Times reporting was either misleading or just plain wrong (Wendy Anderson’s rebuttal on X). 

2.    “Law Firms that Appeased Trump-and Angered Their Clients,” a lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal this week, chronicles the backlash to national law firms that struck deals with the president after he targeted them with executive orders because of cases they had brought against him, his administration or policies he favors in the past.

To date, nine major law firms have struck deals, while four others chose to fight. Regarding the fighters, courts have ruled that the executive orders involving three of the firms are “unconstitutional retaliation,” while a temporary order blocking Trump’s executive action has been entered on behalf of the fourth firm. 

Clients are also pulling work from the firms that caved under pressure, “expressing concern” about whether these firms will be tough enough to stand up for them against adversaries “if they weren’t willing to stand up for themselves against Trump.” Tremendously lucrative books of business are involved.

Significantly, the article also reported that:

Trump remains interested in the [targeting] orders, and deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller and his allies want to keep the threats of more executive orders on the table because they think it dissuades the best lawyers from representing critics of the administration.

3.    “Judges Weigh Taking Control of Their Own Security Amid Threats” also appeared in the Journal this week, as threats to judges who have entered orders against the administration have continued to be made by the president, by his appointees and by his MAGA supporters.

Starting in April, some judges and their relatives received unsolicited pizza deliveries in the name of Daniel Anderl, the deceased son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. Anderl was shot dead in 2020 at his parents’ home by a disgruntled litigant.

Judges described being fearful because anonymous people who threatened violence knew where they and their families live.

“One judge said the harassment caused them to weigh the integrity of their rulings against the safety of their family [members].”

As I said here a few weeks ago,, we know we are losing our democracy when citizens (including judges) start modifying their standard practices out of fear of retaliation by the president or his henchmen.

(Of course, Trump has already effectively compromised the independence of dozens of Republicans in Congress—the second of three “co-equal” branches of government—by threatening “to primary them” in upcoming elections if they dare to cross him.)

4.    In Trump’s first five months in office, everyone watching has witnessed the on-again/off-again tariffs that turned an improving American economy into a skittish one; his appointment of incompetent (Pete Hegseth) and alarming (RFK Jr,) individuals to run significant arms of the government; our country’s failure to adequately support Ukraine and a world order that opposes one country’s invasion of another; family and personal use of the Oval Office for enrichment on an unprecedented scale; and this week, Trump’s social media hissy-fit exchanges with Musk. 

Given the regime’s performance to date, how is America being viewed these days from outside our borders? How are adversaries like Russia, North Korea and China assessing Trump 2.0? I’m embarrassed to admit that the satirical on-line news blast The Onion may once again have gotten it exactly right.

This post was adapted from my June 8, 2025 newsletter. Newsletters are delivered to subscribers’ in-boxes every Sunday morning, and sometimes I post the content from one of them here, in lightly edited form. You can subscribe by leaving your email address in the column to the right.