"Science is truth."

Please share this with everyone. Let’s never listen to these liars ever again. I guess CNN doesn’t need Sanjay to be a useful idiot anymore pic.twitter.com/XawCqUEWUB

— Adam Carolla (@adamcarolla) July 30, 2026

The invocation of science ought to be a call to calm rationality, but there we see it used like a tagline for a horror movie: Be afraid, be very afraid.

ADDED: Did you know that the line "Be afraid, be very afraid" originally came from Mel Brooks?

"The Democratic Party is so short on cash that leaders at its headquarters have undertaken a new gambit to mask the severity of the problems: asking vendors not to send bills until after the midterm elections...."

"At the center is Ken Martin, the 53-year-old party chairman, who has found himself increasingly isolated, gripped by the fear that he will lose his job and relying on a vanishingly small circle of people he trusts, according to interviews with more than two dozen Democrats, including current and former D.N.C. officials and members. Most of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s troubled state of affairs. Martin’s fraying nerves are showing. In a pique of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone-tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the D.N.C.’s human resources department.... "

From "Inside the Phone-Throwing Drama at the Troubled, Broke Democratic Party/The Democrats should be well positioned to make gains in this year’s midterms. But inside party headquarters, every week brings paranoia, worries about money and, on occasion, emotional eruptions" (NYT gift link).

Just 5 days ago, we were talking about how unusual it is, in a work environment, for someone to throw something. I blogged a story about Troy Jackson, now the Democrats' candidate for Senator from Maine, who, according to WaPo, "once angrily threw a water bottle in a meeting after he couldn’t persuade a lawmaker to vote his way." I asked: "Have you ever thrown anything as a way of expressing emotion? Even in a private, non-work environment? It's some kind of red flag, throwing things. Who does that?"

Various answers in the comments over there, and now we have a new answer: Ken Martin.

"The comments express widespread skepticism and disbelief regarding the claim that the FBI thwarted an attack targeting a UFC event at the White House."

"Many commenters question the credibility of Kash Patel and the administration, suggesting the story is fabricated or exaggerated. There is also criticism of the administration's motives, with some suggesting it is a distraction or a ploy to justify security measures like a ballroom. Overall, the sentiment is one of distrust and ridicule."

That's the automated summary of the comments section at The Washington Post article, "FBI thwarted attack targeting UFC event at White House, director says/People have been taken into custody in connection with the alleged planned attack on the UFC event Sunday that President Donald Trump attended, FBI Director Kash Patel said."

ADDED: I think there are always threats against the President, so the question is why are we hearing about this one? It seems rational to assume it's because it serves the administration's political interests. Nothing happened that we saw, so it wasn't like the Correspondents' Dinner incident. So... I'm skeptical too.

"The problem with putting in a reflecting pool? The darn thing reflects. When the light off the Reflecting Pool bounced up onto Lincoln's face, it looked as if a flashlight had been held up under his chin."

Wrote Sarah Vowell, back in 2005, in her very entertaining book "Assassination Vacation," which I recently reread. The link goes to an excerpt of the book at the NPR website. There's also audio of Vowell reading her text, which she does extremely well.

Here's more context:

"[Daniel Chester] French obsessed for years about how to sculpt Lincoln's peculiar face, fretting and reading and thinking before committing to the brooding, seated philosopher in the memorial. He received the commission in 1913. So by the time the memorial was finally dedicated nine years later, the sculptor was a little pent up worrying how his work would come off. Hoping to celebrate, French looked upon the final installation with horror. The problem with putting in a reflecting pool? The darn thing reflects.

"Just as the Founding Fathers might have anticipated (had they been microdosing while drafting the Declaration of Independence)..."

"... the American republic will celebrate its two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary next month with a full card of mixed-martial-arts brawls on the South Lawn of the White House. Weigh-ins will take place at the Lincoln Memorial. The night of mayhem is also meant to celebrate the eightieth birthday of the President of the United States, a longtime fan of the sport...."

So begins "Dana White Thinks Everyone’s a Fighter/The U.F.C. president on his decades of friendship with Donald Trump, his relationship with Joe Rogan, and his 'awesome' night at the White House Correspondents’ dinner" in The New Yorker, written by David Remnick.

I wanted to quote that here because I feel as though I'm seeing a trend in Trump-hating writing. There's a choice to couch descriptions within a problem of the distortion of reality. In this article we have the idea of the Framers microdosing. Last night, I blogged a WaPo writer saying "at least half of life with RFK Jr. feels like something you dreamed"... though "It sure feels real in your lower intestines, doesn’t it?"

Why did the writer take us inside her body like that? It's one thing to say my mind is off, I feel like I'm on drugs or I must be dreaming or maybe I'm crazy, but it's another thing to invite us into the nether regions. People often speak of their "gut reaction," but it's rather intimate to bring up "lower intestines." At least we're not directed to think about the colons of the Founding Fathers.

Anyway, speaking of getting physical: mixed martial arts. Mixed martial arts for the celebration of America's "two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary next month." Next month is June. The 4th of July is in July. But the fighting on the White House lawn is June 14th. That's Trump's birthday. Can't he have what he wants?

What did George Washington do on his birthday? It's 4 in the morning, and I'm writing this wide awake and sober: I'm going to guess nothing.

History in the making 👀

New visuals for #UFCWhiteHouse and the UFC Freedom 250 Fan Fest are here!

[ Presented by @Cryptocom & @RamTrucks ] pic.twitter.com/PQP7dut7fE

— UFC (@ufc) May 23, 2026

Fear of blue and desperate clinging to "character-defining grey."

"The resurfacing will dramatically and permanently transform the character-defining grey, achromatic appearance of the reflecting pool basin. The new colouration will cause the pool to resemble a large swimming pool rather than the reflective civic landscape it was designed to be, distorting the experience of the site for the millions of visitors who come to it each year."

So said the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a Washington society, quoted in The London Times, which looks like this, going all in on AI imagery:

I was going to ding the the Cultural Landscape Foundation for writing "grey" instead of "gray," but when I saw "colouration," I had to assume that The London Times imposes its British spellings on quoted material.

It's funny how people are getting cranked up over the color blue. The Foundation associates blue with backyard summer fun incompatible with what the reflective pool is supposed to be.

What do we think of this vivid A.I.-generated Spencer Pratt ad?

Oh my God. This is GREAT.

SPENCER PRATT Campaign Ad for Mayor. pic.twitter.com/G81H6c0QJx

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) May 6, 2026

Watch the video first, then pick the opinion that's closest to yours:

Brilliant use of A.I. to convey a rock-solid message.

Gets your attention and makes a great point.

Excellent but devolves into physical violence that distracted me from the message.

Garish. Sick. I hate A.I., violence against specific people, whiteface on a black woman. Terrible.

 

pollcode.com free polls

"This is the permission structure for violence right there: We know they lie to cover up the crimes. We don't trust anything they say...."

"We're right when we promote conspiracy theories about the people we hate. We're right to do it because it's not our obligation to speak on behalf of truth. It's our obligation to speak on behalf of the way people feel.... People feel that there's something bad going on. Therefore, it's not our obligation to tell the truth about what's actually happening.... "

Senator Elissa Slotkin, last night on Bill Maher's show, said that what people want is "more alpha energy."

Elissa Slotkin: You're not going to get me to defend democratic messaging. We can have a whole autopsy about that.

Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, the American people want something different out of their government. Can we have a little bit more alpha energy? pic.twitter.com/h8li6EAbmq

— Blue Georgia (@BlueGeorgia) March 28, 2026

"You're not going to get me to defend Democratic messaging. That's not going to be ever something that I'm going to defend. That's part of the problem and why we lost the last election. We can have a whole autopsy about that. I think, for me, what is important, going forward, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, is like: the American people, they're telling us something, they want something different out of their government. They want, they want some alpha energy from their leaders. And they certainly — whether you agree with him or not — are getting that from some of the Republicans. And my plea to my own party is, like, can we have a little bit more alpha energy? Punch and believe in what we believe in. Show people that we give a shit, and be simple about addressing the needs that they care about the most. And that has been a struggle to be a part of that change."

That came at the end of her interview with Maher and felt prepared and tacked on. There was no time left to explore the term "alpha energy," which just felt ridiculous. Was she saying Democrats need to talk and act more like Trump because they need to get elected and the voters are pretty damned stupid and self-interested?

I see Elissa Slotkin was saying "alpha energy" last summer. There's this interview, in the NYT, from July: "Elissa Slotkin Wants Democrats to Reclaim Their 'Alpha Energy'/In a wide-ranging interview, the junior senator from Michigan took stock of her party’s deep-seated woes, warning Democrats not to be 'so damn scared.'" 

You often talk about the need for Democrats to bring back “alpha energy,” along the lines of Michigan sports coaches. What is something Democrats do that is the opposite of alpha energy?

In the Midwest, alpha energy is about emotion. Whether you’re a coach and you know what your team has put into the game, or you’re frustrated that they didn’t give it their all, you’re not speaking from wonky details. You’re speaking about your gut and your emotion. I think Democrats have lost that.

We respond to people’s pain with a long list of wonky policies.

Alpha energy is synonymous with being bold. Call the tough play, take a risk, be bold. And don’t be so damn scared of your own shadow.

Yeah, my first guess was right: She's saying Democrats need to talk and act more like Trump because they need to get elected. 

Did she answer the question "What is something Democrats do that is the opposite of alpha energy?" Only vaguely. They're "speaking from wonky details" and not "speaking about your gut and your emotion." Her statement of the problem is, ironically, lacking in the quality she's saying they need. 

And what is that quality again? And frankly, I think the idea is based on gender stereotypes but mixes up the male and the female up so we're served an unwholesome stew.

"These people are kinda crazy" — JD Vance adds a "kinda" to Trump's "These people are crazy."

Trump:

 

JD:

 

Assess the difference "kinda" made:

How does JD's "kinda" — in calling people "crazy" — distinguish him from Trump? Check all that apply.

He's a gentler, sweeter man.

He's less decisive, less sure he's got it right.

He's not that tightly bound to Trump.

He prefers fuzzier speech.

He has reservations about using the concept of insanity.

He's maintaining a distinction from Trump for 2028 election purposes.

"Kinda" is just filler, like saying "um." It means absolutely nothing.

 

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: The results:

"These people are crazy, I’m telling you. They’re crazy. Amazing. Terrible. Boy, oh boy."

From the SOTU transcript (NYT): "All Democrats, every single one of them, voted against these really important and very necessary massive tax cuts. They wanted large-scale tax increases to hurt the people instead.... Countries that were ripping us off for decades are now paying us hundreds of billions of dollars.... Everybody knows it. Even Democrats know it. They just don’t want to say it.... As we speak, Democrats in this chamber have cut off all funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It’s all cut off — it’s all cut off.... They have closed the agency responsible for protecting Americans from terrorists and murderers.... We have no money because of the Democrats.... All voters must show proof of citizenship... and this should be an easy one and by the way it’s polling at 89 percent including Democrats, 89 percent.... Both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly agree on the policy.... And the reason they don’t want to do it.... They want to cheat..... But surely we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will.... These people are crazy, I’m telling you. They’re crazy. Amazing. Terrible. Boy, oh boy.... Democrats are destroying our country....  Dangerous repeat offenders continue to be released by pro-crime Democrat politicians again and again...."

Trump delivered a very long SOTU last night. Did you watch? Really?

It was too late for me, but I watched. Until I didn't.

It's an unnecessary formality, very stiff and awkward, but Trump made it his own. Hunched over the lectern and with his hair coming unglued, he boasted of achievements and called out individuals in the audience, who were, in his view, either fantastic or horrible. We're in a grand struggle between good and evil, don't you know? I dropped out at some point because sleep had a greater claim on me, as it did on some members of the audience. But Trump was still fully inflated, and the video remains. But there's something about watching it live that keeps you going, and once it's dead, you don't really care, do you?

The RNC posted yesterday that "Democrats were told to be 'willing to get shot' to obstruct President Trump."

I do think this posting should say that this interview took place last July. Posting it relates to the shooting of Renee Good, but when Blitzer and Jeffries spoke, the incident had not yet occurred:

Democrats were told to be "willing to get shot" to obstruct President Trump, and instead of condemning it, they incited it further.

Democrats are held hostage by their violent and deranged far-left base.pic.twitter.com/Y3DQw2UG4z

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 8, 2026

Here's the Axios article Blitzer cites, "Democrats told to 'get shot' for the anti-Trump resistance" (published July 7, 2025). Excerpt:

"It’s impossible to determine a single root cause for the overall sense of anger and frustration with government..."

"... but there is a fairly obvious hinge point after which voter fury grew, about 20 years ago. That’s when the Iraq War grew deadlier while the stated purpose of the invasion — to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction — turned out to be false. The housing market had blown up by 2008, causing a financial collapse that left millions of homeowners underwater and, the following year, led to an unemployment rate of 10 percent. Around that time, cable news began breaking away from its early focus on crime and trials and was instead becoming focused wall-to-wall on politics and government, fragmenting into ideological corners just as technology turned phones into instant echo chambers...."

From "Anger is a defining character trait for both parties, new study shows/Updated Pew research shows Democrats are now at record levels of anger toward government, surpassing previous GOP records" (WaPo).

Sample comments: "What a terrible both sidesism essay"/"Before Trump spewed his invectives demonizing our democratic institutions, I was mostly content with our government and felt it reflected our values...."

I like that the essay, by Paul Kane, reminded Democrats that their anger isn't traced to Trump. It was full grown in the Bush era. And you should have seen what it looked like here in Wisconsin in 2011:

"Nobody got angry. You were angry at people that didn't want to get vaccinated and you didn't get angry at the person who used science..."

"... to create a horrible disease that was completely avoidable. And that killed who knows how many people. That didn't make you mad."

Said Joe Rogan, on his recent podcast with Adam Carolla.

Carolla: "Where's the anger over finding out that it was made in China at a lab... and then where's the anger over being forced or being vaxxed or all this misinformation being used?... I realized they don't want to say anything 'cause they're ashamed

"Democrats say the use of silly inflatable costumes is a way to undercut Republican portrayals of such events as violent 'hate America rallies.'"

The Washington Post sets out to answer the question "Why protesters against Trump are wearing frog, chicken and T. rex costumes."

If you feel you need to put on a costume to disguise what you are, doesn't that suggest that you are the scary thing you're trying to cover up? I think of the wolf in sheep's clothing.

The image of wolf in sheep's clothing comes from in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

From the WaPo article:

"It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year..."

"... in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.... Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died — the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, and the patriotic devotion and love of God.... Today, because of this heinous act, Charlie's voice has become bigger and grander than ever before, and it's not even close...."

Said Trump in an address from the Oval Office last night.

My attention was called to that by this Maggie Haberman piece in the NYT: "At the White House, Trump’s Grief and Shock Turn to Rage Over Charlie Kirk/President Trump asked for updates and met with advisers in the Oval Office before recording a four-minute video in which he blamed rhetoric from the 'radical left' for the killing."

The headline prompts us to question Trump's basis for purporting to know what motivated the killer. Maybe we ought to wait until we learn more, and maybe the hateful rhetoric is coming from both sides, and maybe there are leftwing targets of violence. I'm imagining those on the left scurrying to prevent Trump and his allies from controlling the narrative.

I wrote that last paragraph based on the headline and drawing on my own expectations. Then I read the article and did not find what I'd thought I'd find. It is more of a straightforward description of the scene at the White House yesterday. We're told "the corridors... were quiet, as staff there absorbed news," and "Televisions affixed to walls in different rooms blared minute-to-minute coverage.... Some staff members appeared to have been crying."

The last sentence of the article makes me jerk my head to check the calendar icon in the sidebar of my computer: "The president was still on track for a visit to New York on the anniversary of the last significant event to unite nearly all Americans across parties: the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

It's a very somber day, not a day to strain to find a way to advantage your side. And yet, there is Trump in that video, forthrightly blaming the radical left. He didn't take a day or 2 off for reflection and what either is or looks like prayer. And that's a temptation to all on the left and all those pumping for Democrats to assert that the right is also responsible for the violence. Yield to that temptation and you might be the next Matthew Dowd.

See "Matthew Dowd Fired From MSNBC for Charlie Kirk Comments" (Variety). What Dowd said, probably feeling this was measured, accurate, and smart: "[Charlie Kirk] is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in."

"Unfortunately, when you have a society where you do have ubiquitous crime, you do need some kind of an authoritarian leadership."

"Not saying you need tyranny, not saying you need a dictator, but you need fucking laws and you need rule of law. And sometimes those people come off very harsh and very uncaring and unloving and you know, the total opposite for, like, the reason why people voted for Jimmy Carter, I think, 'cause Jimmy Carter represented like a, like, a genuinely sweet good guy. Right. But, like, look how that presidency was a disaster 'cause they were all working against him for sure. And on top of that, it's, like, hard to, like, you gotta gotta be a bit of a hard ass if you wanna run the world...."

 Said Joe Rogan, on his #2370 podcast, transcript and audio, here, at Podscribe.

"The musical was closely associated with Barack Obama’s administration: Lin-Manuel Miranda... took inspiration for musicalizing George Washington’s Farewell Address from a video..."

"... in which will.i.am set Mr. Obama’s 'Yes We Can' speech to a melody. But it didn’t appeal to liberal audiences alone. Lynne and Dick Cheney praised it as much as Hillary Clinton. In the 2016 documentary 'Hamilton’s America,' Paul Ryan and George W. Bush shared their appreciation alongside Elizabeth Warren and Mr. Obama.... It was seen to represent the promise and limitations of the Obama era, a celebration of America as the land of immigrant achievement, expanding and fulfilling the founders’ imperfectly realized plan. ... Ezekiel Kweku called it 'the Hamilton consensus': a vision of 'an America whole but unfinished, waves of progress bringing it closer and closer to its founding ideals' as 'a meritocracy wrung clean of bias, whose creed is both a promise and invitation to anyone talented and hardworking enough to lay claim to it.'... Ten years on, 'Hamilton' feels less like a fantasy than a warning: This is how quickly America’s promise could curdle...."

Writes Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, in "A Decade After It Opened, ‘Hamilton’ Feels Like a Warning" (NYT).

I've never seen "Hamilton," but I've always thought will.i.am's video, "Yes We Can," was fantastic. Perhaps it still calls to mind the feeling of 17 years ago, when it expressed a wan, sad hope. Now, looking back on the Obama administration, there's no hope about what is in the past, but the wan sadness remains. What that has to do with rapping in 18th century costumes and stomping about and pointing at the ceiling, I do not know. I've never seen "Hamilton," but I hear that it used to express hope and now it's supposed to be regarded as warning us about Trump. I'm still not going to watch it. Too pushy. I'm fine with whatever subtle feeling there is in "Yes We Can," as the Obama presidency fades into the distance.

"I think it’s going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it’s going to require Democrats to just toughen up."

Said — guess who? — Barack Obama.

This is another one of those statements to fundraisers that you weren't supposed to hear, but they manage to leak out somehow.

In this case, the statement was "exclusively obtained by CNN."

The reputedly amiable but often crabby ex-President also said: "You know, don’t tell me you’re a Democrat, but you’re kind of disappointed right now, so you’re not doing anything. No, now is exactly the time that you get in there and do something. Don’t say that you care deeply about free speech and then you’re quiet. No, you stand up for free speech when it’s hard. When somebody says something that you don’t like, but you still say, 'You know what, that person has the right to speak.' … What’s needed now is courage."

What have they got that I ain't got? 

Obama's remarks made me think of this "printed, foldable card that can fit right into your ID badge holder" given out by the UW School of Medicine and Public Health, developed by the Office of Social Impact and Belonging: