"The fact that [Jason Arday] was promoted as some kind of prodigy given how crazy his self-representation was is a sign of just how cultic and confused the left and left-leaning institutions have become."

"I mean, it's just it's just a sign of the the cancer having spread everywhere.... I mean, it's just, this is all, anti-racism.... This is putting the black — the BLM black — square not only in your bio but in your brain. Um, it's a cult. It's always been a cult. It's been obvious for for about a decade now that this is what we're witnessing is the the ramifications of a moral panic around race and social justice that got engineered on the left.... It's intolerable and if we don't get our heads clear of its new variant, this this far-left socialist/communist alliance with with Islamism, we're going to go for another round of right-wing ascendancy in America and elsewhere.... [Cambridge was] totally corrupt in its desperation to believe that somebody who checks all the identitarian boxes is a you know is... some kind of you know woke superhero.... I mean, you're you're in the presence of a lunatic who's making these claims about himself, right?... The social justice hysteria around race that has occurred in the last decade has been almost totally dishonest almost. I mean, this is the just Jussie Smollettification of everything, right?"

Said Sam Harris.

 

It's too close to call over at the NYT, but "Abdul El-Sayed has won Michigan’s slugfest of a Democratic Senate primary, NBC News projects."

I'm reading "Abdul El-Sayed wins Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, notching a Midwest victory for the left/The former public health official has defeated Rep. Haley Stevens, NBC News projects, despite facing a huge advertising disadvantage."

El-Sayed overcame a nearly $65 million onslaught of outside money and an establishment that had rallied around Stevens. Popular Gov. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Stevens late last month — a move seen as a last-ditch effort to stop a rising El-Sayed.

Here's the NYT version of the news: "Primary Elections Live Updates: Race Too Close to Call in Democratic Primary for Michigan Senate Seat/Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, holds a narrow lead over Representative Haley Stevens, a centrist, in a race that divided Democrats. The party sees the seat as key to its hopes of winning control of the chamber" (gift link).

"These are very, very special times. And this is a very special place. You live in a very special place. Congratulations everybody."

Those were the very very very special words of our President, Donald J. Trump, speaking at Mount Rushmore, on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the 4th of July.

"And we rededicate ourselves to being a nation as big, bold, noble, and as great as these American giants. And that's not easy to do, but we're going to do it. These men could only have been made in the USA. Their faces are engraved on these bluffs, not only because of what they did, but to remind us forever who we are. These heroes exemplify what is timeless, enduring, and eternal about the American character. And in the end, it has always been that character, our distinct and unique identity. It is a truly unique identity and it'll never change.... Liberty has prevailed here because of the culture and character of the people who declared it, defended it, and preserved it.... The identity of a nation is the destiny of a nation. And America has a destiny like no other because we are a people like no other. For whatever reason, that's just the way it is.

"Wordle’s Hard Mode Is Actually Easier, 730 Million Games Show."

The NYT reports, and here's a gift link. I've always played in hard mode. I don't know if that's because my intuition told me it was easier or because I could see it would be more fun, but it certainly wasn't in order to make it harder on myself.

Players in hard mode solve in fewer turns on average.... Those in hard mode have a lower rate of failing to solve in six turns.... Hard mode seems to help players avoid poor choices.... Standard-mode players have more freedom but often don’t know how to use it. Not needing to use revealed letters, they have many more choices on their second and third turns.

David Epstein, author of “Inside the Box: How Constraints Make Us Better,” said in an interview that in any area of life, “when options are really large” there’s a tendency to “back out of a decision or make a poor one.” Citing the cognitive scientist Daniel T. Willingham, he said the brain is mostly not for thinking, but for preventing you from thinking. “It’s wired for convenience, the easy thing, the first thing to pop to mind,” he said, while constraints can paradoxically lead to creativity and productivity....

I get it. We're supposed to think: The choice of hard mode or easy mode in Wordle is like a choice we make in how to live our life. And that's why you might want to stick to tradition (if you are conservative) or have government experts eliminate most of the choices (if you are progressive).

If you had to argue that birds are right wing or left wing, what side would you take and how would you support your position?

That's a prompt I used on Grok this morning after seeing the typo — speako, really — I'd made in a prompt earlier this morning when I used AI to identify a bird. It was a Rose-breasted Grosbeak. I'd said: 

"It's got black and white on top and white on the bottom and there's some right orange patches."

"right" = bright, of course.

Meade said, "Yeah, 'right' orange patches sounds nazi." Hence, my new prompt.

Do not click for more if you don't want to read AI-written material, but I do think this one is at least worth scanning. It's a crisp outline. Grok takes the position that birds are right wing:

Pelvic theology.

I'm noticing that striking and hilarious phrase for the first time as I encounter this essay in the NYT: "Pope Leo Chooses Social Justice Over Pelvic Theology."

This is by David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, and I assume the headline represents his opinion, not something Leo is doing openly, using those words.

Let's read:

"When we were fighting for gay rights — a fight I think we have essentially won — we knew that some issues were more popular than others."

"So we tended to start by trying to win the ones that were most popular. Gays in the military. Employment. We didn’t go after same-sex marriage, we didn’t make marriage a litmus test, until the very end. I analogize that to male-to-female transgender sports. That is the most controversial part of the agenda — the equivalent of gay marriage — so put it at the end. If you go at it that way, you build support for it. But if you insist on the most controversial parts all at once, you make it harder."

Said Barney Frank, quoted in "Barney Frank, in Hospice, Has Advice for the Democrats/Mr. Frank speaks about the missteps of the Democratic Party and his hope for its future. 'Frankly, if I weren’t dying, people wouldn’t be paying as much attention'" (NYT).

"He wants to use his presidency not only to slash the country’s budget but to wage an ideological war and rewire the country’s mentality."

"He wants to dismantle what he calls the 'aberrant' concepts of social justice and economic equality and make the nation’s core principles capitalism, the free market, a limited state and individualism. 'We are at war,' Mr. Milei said at a right-wing festival last year, and added: 'We are fighting a cultural struggle, an ideological battle, a war for the survival of our freedom.' At political rallies and international summits, in public policies and a deluge of social media posts, Mr. Milei has relentlessly sought to infuse Argentina with his libertarian ideals. And turn it into a model for the world. A nation where people are loath to eat alone or drink a cup of mate, the national infusion, without sharing with the person next to them is embracing a leader whose fundamental message is that people should fend for themselves. 'He is trying to break our DNA,' Juan Grabois, an opposition lawmaker, said of Mr. Milei. 'To destroy the communal identity of our people.'... Laziness to Mr. Milei is a vice stemming from years of left-leaning governments that turned society to indolence by giving citizens generous benefits...."

From "Javier Milei Wants to Rewire the Argentine Mind/Argentina’s right-wing president has tamed the country’s runaway inflation. Now he wants to transform its values" (NYT)(gift link, because there's a lot going on over there).

And here he is in his superhero costume:

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet."

Writes Rich Lowrey at The National Review.

How does the ratchet work? It begins with small, unobjectionable, or perhaps even salutary steps, coupled with assurances that potential downsides or extreme outcomes will never come about. Then, over time, incremental moves are made in the same direction until the unreasonable policy that we’d been assured would never happen is entrenched reality.... Trump has yanked the other way so far on these ratchet issues that it’s not clear when or how the left can get them back to the status quo ante.

Don't his antagonists like to think everything he could do on his own with presidential power the next Democratic President can just undo? But not so long ago, they thought that what their Presidents had done could not be undone? That was the ratchet theory. 

"'One Battle After Another' is a movie that connects with the moment we’re in like nothing you’ve seen...."

"As the United States gets pushed, day by day, closer and closer to autocracy, that’s a situation that ought to be setting everyone in the country on edge. Yet it’s part of the nature of autocracy to narcotize people into numbness, delusion, fear, and a kind of self-perpetuating apathy.... 'One Battle After Another,' on the other hand, is a wildly entertaining, awesomely unpredictable screwball political thriller that on some level forces you to confront… the fate of our fucking country.... [I]t’s also the kind of galvanic and enveloping movie that imprints its themes onto your headspace.... The red-state demo has tended to shun films... which it views as liberal-left agit-prop, but I suspect that there’s something about the big vision of 'One Battle After Another' that could prove uniquely inviting.... The film depicts an underground band of revolutionary guerrillas, but instead of holding them up as shining heroes, it portrays them in shades of gray, spotlighting their naïveté and selfishness...."

Writes Owen Gleiberman, in "'One Battle After Another,' With Its Thriller Vision of Authoritarianism, Is the Rare Movie That Could Rule the Cultural Conversation/Paul Thomas Anderson's wild swing of a movie connects with the moment we’re in like nothing you’ve seen"
 (Variety).

And here's Ben Shapiro's view of the movie, from the right:

I'm happy to see America's lefties swooning in love with freedom of speech.

Let them make many strong and loud professions of love, because I want a lot of material to throw in their face when — if? — they get back to subordinating freedom of speech below endless other more important matters.

Is it possible they'll commit to this love for freedom of speech with such intensity that they will forsake its rivals? It's unlikely, but I'll be delighted to give them credit... or even a vote. 

Now, lets check in with Roseanne Barr again:

Remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger to have me fired? https://t.co/w5BcJ1bsLC

— Roseanne Barr (@therealroseanne) September 18, 2025

"From where does all this hatred, violence, and moral vacuity arise?"

"Why did the shooter inscribe his bullets with 'anti-fascist' messaging, cruel taunts, and trans jargon?"

Asks Victor Davis Hanson, in "Was the Current Madness Birthed in the University? America’s descent into violence and moral chaos—from Kirk’s assassination to suppressed crime truths—traces back to the toxic ideologies nurtured in universities" (American Greatness).

Is the hatred caused by the media... Or is the promulgator the Democratic Party and the Left... Or, finally, is the culprit for the madness found ultimately in the elite university?... Why, in the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, are so many teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats so eager to gloat over and cheer his death?... Hundreds of thousands of students emerge from campuses not just indoctrinated with contempt for the Western tradition and American exceptionalism, and not just often thousands of dollars in debt from inflated tuition, but also poorly educated by the standards that once defined education. The working classes and high school graduates, supposedly the losers of our society, are not those who are dividing the country. They are not often advocating violence or trying to use any means necessary to overturn the established order. But so often the products of the modern university are doing just that....

Interesting... but Charlie Kirk's assassin dropped out of college after one semester. He'd been a promising student and won a scholarship to study engineering, yet he veered off that path quickly and into an electrical apprenticeship program. Wouldn't that put him in with the "working classes and high school graduates" —  "supposedly the losers of our society" who "are not those who are dividing the country"? Perhaps the assassin had contempt for the very "teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats" who have been "so eager to gloat over and cheer" his action. We don't know, do we?

The assassin is contemptible — a murderer. But whether his motive aligns with the ideology of the "teachers, professors, and college-graduate bureaucrats" who cheer and gloat, they are contemptible — quite independently. They need to stand in the light and take criticism for the ideas they've taught and enforced.

"For 10 years, I’ve been hearing that we needed to fight fire with fire, to oppose Trump by becoming him, to protect our supposedly sacred liberal institutions by taking some shortcut..."

"... that carved a destructive path straight through them: cracking down on speech, abandoning the norms of journalistic objectivity, making unprecedented use of prosecutorial power. These were bad ideas in their own right, and they did absolutely nothing to stop Trump."

Writes Megan McArdle, in "When the rule of law becomes rule of lawfare/Friday’s Bolton raid and the rebuke of Trump’s $500M fine show what happens when justice is not impartial" (WaPo).

Bad ideas... and they did absolutely nothing to stop Trump. But what if they had stopped Trump? That was the biggest of the ideas, and it might have worked. McArdle asserts that now — now that Trump is back with a vengeance — now we should see that neutral principles are best. If only the lawfare hadn't backfired, it would have been delightful to go on ignoring them.

Delightful for whom? Who are we talking about? Not McArdle herself. She's reporting on what she'd "been hearing" for 10 years. She also says "it was depressing watching so many people on the left thrill to this abusive lawfare." Well, "so many people on the left" think a lot of awful things, including that the so-called "rule of law" is a con.

Did the ordinary liberals of America buy into the fight-fire-with-fire approach? Let them take responsibility, not merely gesture at the "many people on the left." But it's not as though admitting you were wrong now will carry any weight. You played a game of tit for tat and now you're sad that the game continues.

ADDED: Trump plays openly, on Truth Social, just yesterday:

"It was weird enough that six or seven White, trans people moved into the neighborhood. And now the FBI is raiding their house."

Said a resident of the "predominantly Black and Latino neighborhood here known as The Bottoms."

Quoted in "Suspects in Texas ICE shooting tied to trans, anti-fascist activism/Benjamin Song, an alleged ringleader, is a former Marine Corps reservist who trained left-wing activists for close-quarters combat and large-scale gunfights, associates said" in The Washington Post. 

It's quite long, so I'm giving you a free-access link. I'll quote a few highlights:

The raid... was part of an investigation into a July 4 attack outside the Prairieland Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, an hour’s drive south.... The Alvarado attack is one of the most violent incidents in a wave of assaults and threats against federal immigration officers.... The Department of Homeland Security recorded 79 assaults on ICE officers between Jan. 21 and June 30....

The topic is the rise of left-wing violence in the Trump era, but WaPo interrupts itself to remind readers that there's even more right-wing violence and it's worse.

"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:

"Something happened to literature when the center of gravity moved from Greenwich Village to M.F.A. programs on university campuses."

"When I got out of college I dreamed of being a novelist or playwright. I volunteered to be an extremely junior editor at a literary journal called Chicago Review. But after a few meetings I thought to myself, 'Do I really want to spend the rest of my life gossiping about six obscure novelists at the Iowa writing program?' It seemed like a small and judgmental world. Furthermore, the literary world is a progressive world, and progressivism — forgive me, left-wing readers — has a conformity problem. Even more than on the right, there are incredible social pressures in left-wing circles to not say anything objectionable.... If the social pressures right around you are powerful, you’re going to write for the coterie of people who consciously or unconsciously enforce them, and of course your writing will be small and just like everyone else’s...."

Writes David Brooks, in "When Novels Mattered" (NYT).

Brooks goes on and ends up with the prediction that the literary novel will make a comeback, but I can't figure out what's supposed to end the "incredible social pressures" that somehow keep the literary geniuses from breaking free. Why wouldn't they have done it already? They — if they exist — seem idiotically susceptible to domestication.

ADDED: Something I found myself saying to Grok: "One problem is women do most of the literary fiction reading and wom[e]n today don't take the kind of low-level misogyny that used to power man-written literature."

"Happy 4th of July!"/"Ew. Wow. I didn't know you were a racist. That's crazy."

"I just wanted to celebrate Independence Day"/"Actually..."

"Fearful of Mamdani, with his calls for free buses, free child care, city-owned grocery stores, and a rent freeze, all paid for by tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, the city’s one percent..."

"... tried to map out how to respond. There may not be much they can do. All the money in the world didn’t save Cuomo from being smoked in the primary by someone who is just a few years away from a nascent career in rap music. If both Cuomo and Adams and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa run, as they all say they will, the anti-Mamdani vote will also be split. Adams has already signaled he is willing to go places Cuomo was not by calling Mamdani an antisemite and mocking his youthful campaign volunteers as outsiders who are gentrifying the neighborhoods of his working-class base. Unsure how to proceed in the general election, the city’s C-suites are bracing for a Mayor Mamdani...."

From "Zohran Mamdani on Why He Won/He beat Andrew Cuomo and the elite by upending how the city’s politics was supposed to work" (NY Magazine).

"There may not be much they can do"... because consider what they've already done. As Ezra Klein says in his new podcast episode, "Mamdani, Trump and the End of the Old Politics" (Podscribe): "Andrew Cuomo ran a [primary] campaign that was based on a tried and true strategy of buying attention. He had this gigantic super PAC with tens of millions of dollars purchasing all the advertising money can buy absolutely dominating airwaves with negative ads about Zoran Mamdan." We hear Cuomo's ad: "His own words, Zoran. Mamdani wants to defund the police. Zoran Mamdani is a 33-year-old dangerously inexperienced legislator who's passed just three bills. Zoran Mamdani, a risk New York can't afford. Paid for by Fix the City."

That didn't work in the primary. 

"For years now, progressives have been engaged in a competition of sorts, which is like, 'In the hierarchy of intersectionality, who has the most right to be upset?'"

"And that has put conservative white men in particular on the defensive at a time when they’re already freaked out about shifting social and economic hierarchies. So a lot of people are tired of feeling guilty, and they have been very open to the idea that empathy or compassion is a weakness...."

Said Michelle Cottle, in "Why Politics Feels So Cruel Right Now/Three Opinion writers on the death of empathy in America" (NYT).

So there's the "hierarchy of intersectionality," the "social... hierarch[y]," and the "economic hierarch[y]." These "progressive" minds, obsessed with "hierarchy," love their own capacity for "empathy," but it's nothing like compassion for all human beings. It's something to give only to the ones you decide are most oppressed — those with what Cottle snarks have "the most right to be upset" — and something to withhold from everyone else.

"The TV show 'Girls' is a right-wing show.... [That's] some labeling we’re grafting onto this thing after the fact."

"But what these pieces of work are doing is telling the truth about the world in a way that is not compromised by artistic or ideological preferences.... about [what]... society wishes were true about these people. So my thing is that if you are telling the truth about the world, then you are going to make right wing art..."

I'm listening to Jonathan Keeperman on Ross Douthat's podcast in an episode called "The New Culture of the Right: Vital, Masculine and Offensive":

 

The quote above is Keeperman's. Douthat responds: "Then you’re saying all great art is somehow right wing." He thinks there can be some great art that is "left coded," but he agrees about "Girls," because "it’s a scabrous satire of a particular kind of upper middle class lifestyle in a liberal city."

Keeperman denies that he's saying "if I like it, therefore it’s right wing art, or if it tells the truth [it's right wing art]." Click on the embedded video if you want to hear Keeperman clarify or hear Douthat wedge in the concept of "vitalism" ("a celebration of individuality, strength, excellence, and an anxiety about equality and democracy as... enemies of human greatness").

That reminds me of the time — back in 2005 — I incurred the wrath of lefties by saying "To be a great artist is inherently right wing."

But back to "Girls." Why talk about "Girls" now? The reason for me is that Lena Dunham has a new essay in The New Yorker: "Why I Broke Up with New York/Most people accept the city’s chaos as a toll for an expansive life. It took me several decades to realize that I could go my own way."