"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?

"I can explain and validate everything that I've done."

Well this didn't age wellpic.twitter.com/prvxPsrHpF

— Julian Assange (@ImJulianAssange) July 29, 2026

The video is from November 22, 2022.

He only said "I can explain and validate everything that I've done." He didn't say he would. There's an explanation, of course, even if the explanation is I chose to lie because it was the best way to get the compliance we wanted. 

"You’ve been in the folk tradition... I wonder how your attitude toward those types of songwriting have differed under President Trump..."

"... versus, at the time, under George W. Bush, when you wrote 'When The President Talks to God,' one of your best-known songs."

The NYT interviewer asks Conor Oberst, in "How Conor Oberst Survived Teenage Rock Stardom" (gift link).

Oberst answers: "You know, it’s really hard for me to even articulate the Trump era. Maybe at some point I’ll be able to do it. It’s like, you can’t satirize what’s already a parody. It’s already a disgusting, gross cartoon.... I’m sure it permeates everything I write, but to write directly toward, I found it almost impossible.... I mean, I’ve thought about it and I’ve had plenty of people be like, where’s the new 'When the President Talks to God'? I don’t know. It’s such an avalanche of insanity."

What is the origin and history of the idea that something/someone is beyond parody because what they already are is the parody?

ChatGPT's astounding hallucination: "Joe Biden did not withdraw after the primaries were over. He stayed in the race through the primaries and remained the nominee. Kamala Harris did not replace him as the Democratic nominee."

I was reading the NYT article, "Concern Grows Over Republican Congressman’s Mysterious Absence/A spokesman for Representative Thomas Kean Jr. said an unspecified 'personal medical issue' has led the New Jersey Republican to miss House votes."

The last vote Mr. Kean cast was on March 5.... [A] campaign spokesman said that Mr. Kean was “dealing with a personal medical issue” and would be “back to a full schedule soon.”... “He’s going to be totally fine”...

I went to ChatGPT just to ask about what sort of medical issue it might be. He needed to keep it secret. It's "personal" (embarrassing somehow?). And we know he'll be "totally fine" "soon." On reflection, I suspect there's some dissembling in there. I prodded ChatGPT to consider that Kean is ultimately going to withdraw from his re-election race and that what's going on now is a matter of timing. The primaries in New Jersey will happen on June 2d, he'll win, then withdraw, and then the Republican Party will be free to slot in whomever they want. 

ChatGPT was dubious about my hypothesis, so I said: "Just look at the last presidential election. The Democratic Party avoided a crowded primary because they let the incumbent look like he was going to go forward. When it was too late and the primary season was over, Biden withdrew, and the party got to put Kamala Harris in. I assume that was coordinated and the timing of Biden‘s withdrawal was done to spare the party a contentious primary season."

Here's ChatGPT's amazing answer:

That interpretation doesn’t really line up with how the 2024 cycle actually unfolded—or with the incentives the party was facing.

First, some grounding: 

• Joe Biden did not withdraw after the primaries were over.
• He stayed in the race through the primaries and remained the nominee.
• Kamala Harris did not replace him as the Democratic nominee.

So the specific sequence you’re describing—“incumbent clears the field, then withdraws late so the party can install a successor”—didn’t actually happen in that case.

Thanks for the "grounding," Chat.

"Don't worry about, like, squirreling away money for retirement. In, like, 10 or 20 years, it won't matter."

"If any of the things we've said are true, saving for retirement will be irrelevant."

Elon's advice for near-retirees: Don't save money for retirement. https://t.co/cD54K9OLIJ pic.twitter.com/BHseG7hpn2

— Peter H. Diamandis, MD (@PeterDiamandis) January 9, 2026

That's not a big "if," is it? "If any of the things we've said are true"? He must have said many things, and only one of them needs to be true before his prediction clicks in. Seems like a sure bet. If we assume Elon Musk always tells the truth. And knows the future. But he doesn't know the future, but he confidently asserts his prediction. So we know he doesn't always tell the truth. And yet, in his world, he only needs to be right about ONE thing, for his advice to pan out... if he's right about that only one thing needs to be true concept. 

"Though Musk is unpredictable, he is also a formidable ally. With his nearly unlimited resources and unmatched digital megaphone..."

"... Musk could prove a powerful asset to the MAGA movement once Trump leaves the stage. Vance in particular stands to benefit. Though the falling out between Trump and Musk dominated the headlines, Vance’s role in the reunion highlights his own relationship with the billionaire. He talks regularly with Musk, who sees Vance as a viable 2028 candidate.... Musk and Vance, a former Silicon Valley investor, share not just a tech-infused worldview but a fondness for online performance — especially on Musk’s social media platform, X, where Vance has embraced a sharp, 'own-the-libs' style that can mirror Musk’s own taste for provocation. Their alliance could further entrench the influence of tech titans in the White House, extending the authority of private entrepreneurs."

From "How Vance brokered a truce between Trump and Musk/JD Vance played a key role brokering a reconciliation between the president and his wealthiest supporter. But as Trump’s first year in office comes to a close, both he and his allies have learned hard lessons about Musk’s unusual influence" (WaPo)(gift link).

That seems pretty important, and WaPo — fighting darkness for the sake of democracy — put it at the top of the front page, right alongside a dubious headline about the spread of "The epidemic of toxic flattery:

I can do without the disease metaphor — "epidemic," "spreading" — because I don't think the problem of flattery — whatever it is — is going to need anything analogous to masks, vaccinations, and staying at home. And what is "toxic" about flattery?

"In a clinical setting there are many things you’re not allowed to say unless you want to end up in a hospital. So I couldn’t be honest with my psychiatrist..."

"... my therapist or anyone who was supposedly there to help, and I kept it all bottled inside. Then ChatGPT came along. I could ask it anything. There was no threat to my freedom. I wasn’t judged. I got information, ideas of things to try to help with symptoms and to talk to my psychiatrist about, encouragement, and when things were bad, advice to reach out to my medical team or call the suicide hotline. It was actually ChatGPT that encouraged me to think about transcranial magnetic stimulation, among other options. I did end up getting T.M.S., and it was like a miracle. I wouldn’t be here today if I didn’t have this outlet. I understand this is a new technology and it’s not a replacement for medical care, but in my case it was an amazing supplement."

Writes Sarah K., in a letter to the NYT commenting on the op-ed "Re "What My Daughter Told ChatGPT Before She Took Her Life."

There's also this letter responding to the same op-ed, from a woman whose 31-year-old daughter killed herself: "To our knowledge, our daughter did not have access to ChatGPT. As limited as it is and should be, I wonder if it could possibly serve as a type of cathartic journaling? In reading some of the comments from people who had contemplated or had made unsuccessful suicide attempts, I was reminded of our daughter’s overriding fear of the loss of her personal agency, which prevented full disclosure and honesty on her part."

"The success rate of getting to a candid place with politicians is very small... and this is somebody who’s divisive and controversial and has a history that’s somewhat sordid..."

"... not by any fault of her own, but I just didn’t see where I could go with that."

Said Marc Maron, quoted in "Liberal comic Marc Maron who helped popularize podcasting explains why he turned down Hillary Clinton interview" (NY Post).

Not by any fault of her own?! What suddenly happened to the asserted desire to speak from "a candid place"?

The article doesn't say the Clinton team pushed to have her on Maron's podcast, only that his producer "pitched Clinton, fresh off her loss... in the 2016 election." He said "You’re the guy to do this" and Maron "adamantly disagreed."

Was he afraid he wouldn't get to a candid place or that he, at least, ran the risk of being candid in a way that would hurt the Democrats.

"She is the Rosetta stone. She knows everything. She arranged every single trip, and if she was just given… immunity, she could be compelled to testify."

Said Alan Dershowitz, quoted in "Trump’s MAGA allies zero in on Ghislaine Maxwell as Epstein furor persists/The intensifying focus on Ghislaine Maxwell represents the latest turn in a winding case that has long been a focus of conspiracy theorists" (NYT).

I'm sure her testimony is valuable, but I see at least 5 problems with the Dershowitz assertion: 1. She may have misunderstood or misperceived what she witnessed when she witnessed it. 2. She will have forgotten some things, 3. She may misremember when she attempts to recall when she is questioned now, 4. She has so much reason now to lie, distort, or at least shape her story to serve her obvious self-interest, 5. Arranging a trip doesn't mean that you know everything that happens everywhere on the plane and at the destination.

ADDED: I know what I've listed are typical problems, and of course, Professor Dershowitz know what they are, but he's the one who chose to say: "She knows everything."

"I made every decision," says Joe Biden, but how would he know, and how could his statement ease our doubts?

The NYT reports on its 10-minute interview with Biden and tells us that "Mr. Biden said that he had orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term, calling President Trump and other Republicans 'liars' for claiming his aides had used an autopen to do so without his authorization."

So he's using the word "liars" without knowing if people are lying. It makes me want to just call him a liar and be done with it. If the aides were using the autopen somewhere outside of his presence, how would he necessarily know what they were doing? He's saying trust me — trust me or else I'll call you a liar.

The article continues: "'I made every decision,' Mr. Biden said in a phone interview on Thursday, asserting that he had his staff use an autopen replicating his signature on the clemency warrants because 'we’re talking about a whole lot of people.'"

How does he know he made every decision? We're not liars if we simply doubt that he had the mental capacity to know what was going on. What sort of decision-making was it? Am I a liar if I presume he did nothing more than rubber-stamp whatever was recommended by the staff?

"The Salt Path, and its recent film adaptation, told the story of a couple who decide to walk the 630-mile South West Coast Path after their home is repossessed."

"The Observer alleged [the author Raynor] Winn had misrepresented the events that led to the couple losing their home. Rather than losing money in a bad business deal, as the book described, the newspaper said the couple had lost their home after Winn had defrauded her employer of £64,000. According to the Observer, the couple borrowed £100,000 to pay back the money Winn had been accused of stealing, and it was when this loan was called in that their home was repossessed...."

From "Penguin says it did 'all necessary due diligence' with The Salt Path" (BBC).

I hadn't heard of this controversy until I listened to the new episode of a podcast I like, "Giles Coren Has No Idea." From this week's episode, "The Salt Path Crumbles":

"Former President Joe Biden’s advisers convinced the aging commander in chief to hold an early summer debate with Donald Trump last year by insisting it would allow him to reach the “widest audience possible'..."

"... a leaked memo reveals. The six-page document dated April 15, 2024 — 73 days before the disastrous forum that tanked Biden’s re-election bid — bizarrely capitalizes and bolds any references to the 46th president. 'By holding the first debate in the spring, YOU will be able to reach the widest audience possible, before we are deep in the summer months with the conventions, Olympics, and family vacations taking precedence,” reads the memo.... 'In addition, the earlier YOU are able to debate the better, so that the American people can see YOU standing next to Trump and showing the strength of YOUR leadership, compared to Trump’s weakness and chaos,' it continues...."

I'm reading "Biden advisers pushed early Trump debate to reach ‘widest audience possible,’ leaked memo reveals" (NY Post).

The bold and capitalized YOU and YOUR looks like something from a scammy advertisement aiming to separate weak-minded seniors from their life savings.

I don't for one minute believe the advisers believed the assertions in the memo. I will be presuming that they could see he was going to be incapable of appearing competent and that they needed to push him to release his hold on the nomination, and they only wanted to do that once the primaries were over and it was too late to do anything but advance Kamala Harris. So they conned him into humiliating himself in the debate and giving the media the basis for declaring him unfit — as if they just noticed — and demanding that he withdraw.

The advisers were not mistaken. They knew what they were doing. They were lying. And they were devious. Let me restate that. THEY knew what THEY were doing. THEY were lying. And THEY were devious.

That's my presumption. Prove me wrong.

"Did I lie? Yup. Did I also write a book that tore people to shreds? Yeah."

Said James Frey, quoted in "Oprah Shamed Him. He’s Back Anyway. Twenty years after 'A Million Little Pieces' became a national scandal, James Frey is ready for a new audience" (NYT)(free-access link).

As Frey sees it, the public has gotten increasingly comfortable with falsehoods, without getting fully comfortable with him. He finds it all a bit absurd. “I just sit in my castle and giggle,” he said.

I'm using my 3rd free link of the month of June on this because I am a long-time admirer of photographs of the interiors of writers' homes. As I wrote 12 years ago: "I love this book, 'Writer's Desk,' with excellent photographs by Jill Krementz (who was married to Kurt Vonnegut) and an introductory essay by John Updike."

I see Frey has an "extra-large mohair Eames chair, which he had custom-made so that he could sit in lotus pose." I identify. I've been buying chairs that accommodate the lotus position since I first bought furniture, which would have been in the 1970s. I wish I still had the chair I bought at Conran's that got me through law school. I'm one of those people who feel more comfortable with my legs folded up. 

Speaking of things written on this blog long ago, I've been around long enough, doing this low-level writerly thing that I do, to have covered the "Million Little Pieces" foofaraw when Oprah was agonizing:

"If there was a big, explosive there there.... If it was there, we would have told you."

So said Dan Bongino, the deputy director of the F.B.I., sitting alongside the F.B.I. director Kash Patel, quoted at the end of the previous post. The topic is what does he know about Thomas Crooks, the man who shot Trump's ear.

Here's the Fox News interview where Bongino makes the statement. Listen to his tone, watch his eyes, assess his demeanor. 

I'm noticing this verbal tic, this argument format: If X were true, I would have told you. It's an oft-expressed idea. It's the same idea as "Trust me" or "Would I lie?" But those are laughably ineffectual  expressions these days. 

I'm noticing this new effort at demanding trust. Kash Patel used it on Joe Rogan (talking about the Epstein video): "If there was a video of some guy — or gal — committing felonies — and I'm in charge — don't you think you'd see it?"

I'm paying attention to this after experiencing Tim Dillon's brilliant trashing of Patel. "They're doing 'Who's On First,'" with Joe as Costello and Kash as Abbott:

"The F.B.I.’s increasingly pervasive use of the polygraph, or a lie-detector test, has only intensified a culture of intimidation."

"Mr. Patel has wielded the polygraph to keep agents or other employees from discussing a number of topics, including his decision-making or internal moves. Former agents say he is doing so in ways not typically seen in the F.B.I.... Jim Stern, who conducted hundreds of polygraphs while an F.B.I. agent, said... that if someone violated policy, the F.B.I. could polygraph them. But if an agent who legitimately talked to the news media in a previous role had to take one, he said, 'that’s going to be an issue.' 'I never used them to suss out gossip,' he said. At a recent meeting, senior executives were told that the news leaks were increasing in priority — even though they do not involve open cases or the disclosure of classified information. Former officials say senior executives, among others, were being polygraphed at a 'rapid rate.' In May, one senior official was forced out, at least in part because he had not disclosed to Mr. Patel that his wife had taken a knee during demonstrations protesting police violence...."

From "Unease at F.B.I. Intensifies as Patel Ousts Top Officials/Senior executives are being pushed out and the director, Kash Patel, is more freely using polygraph tests to tamp down on news leaks about leadership decisions and behavior" (NYT).

I've made a new tag — "lie detector" — and gone back and applied it to old posts. Interesting to see how many times the topic has come up:

April 2004: "[E]ven if the lie detector was not to be used on [Omarosa], and, indeed, even if lie detector tests are not reliable, if she believed it was to be used on her and believed it was reliable, her running off at the sight of it is some evidence that she had lied in her accusation about the other contestant....."

April 2005:  "Everyone on TV was into analyzing why [the groom-to-be of the Runaway Bride] would take a private lie detector test, but wanted special conditions before he'd take the police test. He wanted it videotaped, and the police refused...."

July 2005: "Some researchers attached sensors to 101 penises and then showed the possessors of these penises either all-male or all-female porn movies. It was kind of a lie detector test, because the men had all professed to being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual...."

October 2008: Ashley Todd, the woman who claimed a black man had carved the letter "B" on her face.

June 2012: "'$1.1 million-plus Gates grants: "Galvanic" bracelets that measure student engagement.'... [I]sn't this basically a lie detector? And if so, won't students train themselves to fool the authorities?"

April 2013:

We need everyone to do their part, first, by being "truthful."

Santa Ono, the sole finalist for University of Florida president, claims that "systemic racism is embedded in every corner of any institution," and says that "the only way to solve it" is for everyone to admit their complicity in racism and engage in BLM-style self-criticism. pic.twitter.com/T3KtRrvdyw

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) May 19, 2025

The best part is the background music. It really helped me experience the angst of the perfect blend of sincerity and insincerity. It felt like an excellent satire.

"Everybody has implicit, um, bias."

That "um" is important. He was doing his part by being truthful. Maybe it's not a big part, but it's a part. These parts may add up. If everyone would just exhibit a tiny twinge of discomfort....

"Biden's physical deterioration — most apparent in his halting walk — had become so severe that there were internal discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair, but they couldn't do so until after the election."

Write Jake Tapper and Thompson in a book they call "Original Sin," quoted in "Exclusive: Biden aides discussed wheelchair use if he were re-elected, new book says" (Axios).

The book will be out in a week, so presumably Axios can excerpt anything from the text and call it "exclusive."

Nothing wrong with needing a wheelchair while serving in government. Obviously, Franklin Roosevelt did it, but he also hid it. What's up with the shame? What does it say to people with disabilities to hide your need for a wheelchair? How can it be better to walk in a "halting" style and to risk falling? Was he in pain? Was he on painkillers?

It might be Bad Analogy Day on this blog — see the previous post — so I'll say it: It reminds me of a gay person in the closet. The hiding expresses shame that hurts others in your group and that underestimates the intelligence and empathy of those you're hiding from. Is that a bad analogy?

Speaking of things not done until after the election, here's Chuck Todd, denying responsibility for hiding Biden's fitness. I'm embedding this because Todd's inability to enact sincerity is so funny that I think an aspiring comic actor could use this as a model:

"If I’m writing fiction and I get deep enough into it, all of a sudden it feels like I’m telling the truth. If I’m writing nonfiction, I write down something I absolutely believe, and it’ll look like a lie."

Said Anne Tyler, quoted in "At 83, Anne Tyler Has a New Novel. She’d Rather Talk About Anything Else. While many of her contemporaries are playing canasta, she’s releasing her 25th book. There’s no mystery to it, Tyler says: Start on Page 1, then keep writing" (NYT).

The trouble with nonfiction is that you're claiming it's truth, and any slanting or glossing over or selectivity undercuts you. With fiction, anything at all true counts as truth.

Joe Rogan says the book — "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" — lied about how and why Kamala Harris missed appearing on his podcast.

Here's the video, cued to the right place, and I've got transcript underneath it, but if you want to read an article about it, with lots of quotes from the podcast, here's this, from the Hollywood Reporter: "Joe Rogan Says Harris Campaign Lied About Being Misled by Show: 'We Have the Receipts'/The podcaster details what he says really happened between his podcast team and the Harris campaign during their much-disputed booking effort: 'It's someone trying to cover their ass.'"

I recommend the original source, the video:

Transcript (from Podscribe, with my editing based on listening to the audio):

Truth is the most valuable thing. If you're speaking openly about something. If you're talking about something publicly, truth is the most important thing. As soon as you are willing to violate truth, to preserve something else... now I can't listen to you anymore... And obviously politics is the best example of that. I mean especially today. I guess it's probably a good time to talk about this. There was a thing that came out recently. There was a book, some book about the Kamala Harris campaign where they talked about her getting on this show, and they said a bunch of things that weren't true. They... supposedly talked to like 150 different people about... what happened with her coming on this show.... They didn't talk to us. Which is kind of crazy....

"Ben Wikler's rise to Democratic stardom has a very Madison backstory."

A nice article in the local paper, The Cap Times.

I especially liked the part about The Yellow Press, which was sometimes edited right here in the house we now call Meadhouse:

[In high school,] Wikler and his friends had founded a satirical publication called The Yellow Press.... The newspaper... dovetailed with the rise of another Madison-area satirical publication, The Onion, where he later worked part-time as a headline writer. But while The Yellow Press included [silly topics] and occasionally rankled an administrator or two — an article titled “Prom Night Is Such a Romantic Night to Get F-----” landed the kids in hot water — the paper included serious subject matters. ...