"I’m addicted to reading," said the journalist to Sam Bankman-Fried, who said "Oh, yeah? I would never read a book."

I read that scintillating anecdote in a nonbook — a WaPo scribbling called "Sam Bankman-Fried doesn’t read. That tells us everything" by Molly Roberts.

If an 8-word spontaneous remark "tells us everything" in your view, Ms. Roberts, can I infer that you agree with SBF's anti-book statement?

Well, I don't know what's in Bankman-Fried's mind or Roberts's, but I feel like the headline tells me everything I need to know about the latter. 

But I'll read the article anyway, because you are kind enough to read my blog post, which is also not a book, and which mostly is an outgrowth of my reading things that are not books (though 2 posts down is a post about a book (not really, just kidding, it's a short fragment arrived at by searching for an isolated word that came up in conversation)).

Roberts writes:

"And if Dark Brandon transforms from parody imbued with implicit eye-rolling to enthusiastic exaggeration of the president’s capabilities..."

"... there’s no joke there at all anymore. So, the comedy has turned to tragedy, and if Dark Brandon isn’t dead yet, he probably will be soon. An additional hazard for the hipper, nihilistic early adopters of this trend, assuming everything ironic on the internet does really become genuine: If they’re not careful, maybe they’ll start liking Biden, too."

Writes Molly Roberts in "The Dark Brandon meme can’t escape death" (WaPo).

This news of the inevitable death of the "Dark Brandon" meme comes one day after I blogged "Meet Dark Brandon," which was based on an August 8th WaPo column "Brandon returns, darkly: Democrats turn an insult into a pro-Biden meme." 

That column was written by Matt Viser, whose newest column — "Biden, trying to tout his policies, faces a familiar intruder: Trump" — I just blogged in the previous post.  

Please don't get the impression I'm suddenly a Matt Viser fan. I blogged those columns to write criticism, not to praise them. 

I'm pleased if I contributed at all to the decline of the "Dark Brandon" meme. What I said — sarcastically riffing on something Viser said — was : "Sure, why not? Tap into the zeitgeist! The zeitgeist is fascism, right?"

Now, I'm seeing my quote in light of Roberts's line: "everything ironic on the internet does really become genuine." Should I infer Don't make fun, because it will come true? One more reason to say we're living in The Era of That's Not Funny.

"Trudeau speaks with the bashfulness of a man who expects sympathy from a country that adores him as a father does his little boy."

"That’s fitting for the scion of a Quebecois dynasty and son of former prime minister, the late Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau. He didn’t do better because he didn’t 'know better,' and he didn’t know better because no one ever taught him. Justin Trudeau sounds a bit like the adult version of the notorious affluenza teen who drunkenly drove a Ford F-350 into more than 14 people and killed four, then had a psychologist testify that his permissive upbringing in a world of wealth had left him ignorant of the ramifications of his actions. You see, your Honor, he was never told 'no.' That Trudeau is a relatively liberal politician living in a relatively liberal country — one that markets itself as a haven of multiculturalism and tolerance and, in many ways, actually is — likely amplified the problem. He never learned a lesson because he was always getting gold stars for doing relatively liberal things...."

From "Justin Trudeau says his privilege made him do it" by Molly Roberts (in WaPo).

Roberts's main point is that even if privilege explains why you did something, it's not a reason to let you off the hook. Obviously, the "affluenza teen" (Ethan Couch) deserved to be held responsible for his crime, whether his "affluenza" explanation evoked sympathy for him or not. I believe the "affluenza" explanation made us think less of Couch.

But Couch stumbled into his notoriety. He didn't ask to be judged especially virtuous. He dulled himself with alcohol and had an accident, then did what he thought might work to minimize the consequences. He succeeded in winning a light sentence, and he's moved on to obscurity.

Trudeau sought and received elevation to the highest position in his country. How much did that involve presenting himself as an especially virtuous person? He's asking for continuing trust and admiration. His misdeeds didn't kill anybody, and they happened about 20 years ago. What, if anything, does he deserve now? I'd say it's an occasion for everyone to reflect on our tendency to see virtue in a nice-looking young person from a privileged family. We should not be so hurt and surprised that such a human being is not as wonderful as we indulgently allowed ourselves to feel.

One thing I like about Trump is that he never inspired such feelings and he rose to power without the force of the delusion that he was a special, golden, good boy.