"The Senate race in Michigan... will test moderate and independent voters’ appetite for a combative brand of unalloyed progressivism."

"The party’s activist class believes Dr. El-Sayed’s success next week would establish a proof point that left-wing populism is a winning message, even in swing states. He has embraced an economic agenda that sharply attacks the billionaire class and taken a clear stance against Israel. Centrist Democrats fear that a potential El-Sayed triumph in an otherwise favorable climate for Democrats could be badly misinterpreted as a mandate."

That's how the NYT puts it in "The Most Important Race Shaping 2028 for Democrats Is Happening Now in Michigan/The fate of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive candidate in the race, will serve as a litmus test for the left’s potency heading into the next presidential contest."

I suspect the Times wants El-Sayed to lose. 

There's this quote from Matt Bennett, an executive vice president of the centrist Third Way think tank: "The danger is that the triumphal stuff coming from the left will take hold as a narrative that 2028ers believe. I think he will win despite — not because of — the fact that he has campaigned mostly to the left."

Which "narrative" is more true — because of or despite? Good luck with the "despite" side of that narrative flogging.

From the comments over there:

"Headlines like 'Are Shirt Buttons Sexist?' are why the New York Times has lost credibility with the broad center of American politics."

"To we [sic] moderates, it sounds like something that would be mocked on the satirical website, 'The Babylon Bee.'"

That's the 3rd-highest-rated comment at the NYT article "Are Shirt Buttons Sexist?/A reader questions the point of having men’s and women’s shirt buttons on different sides." 

The highest-rated comment is "Sometimes I really do wonder what life is like for people who are constantly scanning the world in search of something to gripe about."

I didn't pick that for the post title because it's too gripe-y — it gripes about griping — and I don't think the article is griping. It's puzzling over a quirk of clothing construction.

The author of the article, Vanessa Friedman, is addressing a question from a reader. She goes through the various theories of how this right/left difference might have happened — one is most common and perhaps you're sure it is the explanation — and observes that none of those reasons apply today. Tradition has its hold. We could change but we don't.

Only the headline writer uses the word "sexist" — and only to ask a question.

But the commenters — NYT commenters! — come for Friedman. They don't say what an amusing light-hearted jaunt through history, thanks for the fun. She's not perceived as having fun at all. She's seen as a grim, angry feminist. Things are changing.

Writing that made me think of this video clip I saw yesterday:

"The View" host Sunny Hostin stands up for accused Cornell gang rape defendants.

🎥: ABC pic.twitter.com/4wo46PXsQU

— TMZ (@TMZ) September 29, 2026

For some reason, this old post is the post of mine that got the most traffic in the last 12 months.

March 9, 2016

Elite media slowly absorbs the meaning of Donald Trump.

In the NYT this morning.

1. A photograph that exemplifies Donald Trump voters as they ominously approach a polling place. The sky is dark, the couple is old and funereal, the man is grim, the woman a clown.

2. A photograph that's mostly black space, with Donald Trump's face all the way over to the right, emerging from the gloom, and the shadows giving his neck the appearance of a scrotum.

3. The Editorial Board is "Trying to Read Donald Trump, in Translation." This is not — as I'd originally imagined — the NYT people translating Trump's simple statements into the language of the elite so they can understand it. It's attempting to imagine how Trump's statements are heard by people in other countries.

4. "Does Donald Trump represent a legitimate expression of the people’s will? Is his rise a manifestation of justifiable resentment among less privileged whites at their neglect by higher caste Republican leaders?" A columnist (Thomas B. Edsall) wonders.

By the power of the NYT, Nikole Hannah-Jones was able to change the course of history.

Why wouldn't she think she had the power to transform her daughter's school?

Arrogance and obliviousness verging on hubris. What a tragic overestimation of her own expertise, importance and moral goodness compounded by a totally unjustified confidence in her chosen profession's power to influence events and circumstances in the real world. https://t.co/QRi5OntnQ6

— Thomas Chatterton Williams (@thomaschattwill) September 22, 2026

More from Chatterton Williams:

"Open Fly."

Subliminal Headline of the Day:

From the NYT home page, linking to this article (about influencers' high jinks at the Open).

I don't know about you, but I take line breaks seriously. I saw and thought about "Open Fly" far too long before the headline congealed into the imprecation to "let your freak flag fly." Is that expression still alive after all these decades? I associate it with Jimi Hendrix. And, yes, I see the original appearance of the expression came in Jimi's 1967 song “If 6 Was 9”:

They’re hoping soon my kind will drop and die
But I’m gonna wave my freak flag high

Then there was David Crosby, in 1970's "Almost Cut My Hair":

But I didn't and I wonder why
I feel like letting my freak flag fly
And I feel like I owe it to someone

But it's more than half a century later! Are we still saying that — I mean, other than jocosely and to refer to the trappings of hippiedom?

And I'm seeing it in the NYT now and then. For example, from 2022, there's "This Is What Happens When Election Deniers Let Their Freak Flag Fly." "Let your freak flag fly" seems to have come to mean "Be yourself" or "You do you," except that it includes the notion that what you are is weird. And not in a good way. For Crosby and Hendrix, it was good. Very good. 

"Even as Trump’s Standing Slips, He Slingshots a Political Novice to Victory."

Headline at the NYT for the story about Darline Graham's victory in yesterday's primary runoff.

You can see the story the Times wants to tell, even as the facts on the ground don't line up exactly right:

Some of the luster had seemed to come off Mr. Trump’s political brand in recent weeks. His approval ratings have drooped, his party’s midterm outlook has darkened and his chosen picks in several races for governor and the House have fallen short.

ADDED: He slingshots her. It's like something Wile E. Coyote would do to himself to cross a canyon. Or what the Lost Boys did to Robin Williams:

The Mythbusters tried it:

I hadn't used my "deeply" tag since last May.

It's a deeply bloggy tag, so it makes me want to do a post collecting recent iterations of "deeply." The first time I used it — in "Deeply... it's such a poser word" — I had a 12-point list. That was back in 2014. Let's see what "deeply" has been doing lately.

1. "The Once-Shameless President Is Deeply Embarrassed/As Donald Trump faces one humiliation after another, he is attacking those he blames" by Jonathan Lemire in The Atlantic, published today. Gift link. "But how Trump will respond next to this ongoing embarrassment remains unknown. He’s made the war deeply personal. Will he now bail on the stalled war entirely, leaving Iran more empowered in the region? Will he follow through on his threats to dramatically escalate the conflict, perhaps even to strike civilian infrastructure and energy sites? Or will he channel his rage against Americans who point out his mistakes?"

2. "UN rips ‘deeply troubling’ Iran for executing at least 56 people since start of war: ‘Has no place in our world'" — published today in The New York Post. "Several people were executed in the last two weeks alone, including a 19-year-old charged with 'enmity against god' for allegedly partaking in January’s protests. Two others arrested during the protests were also executed. And in July, two people were executed out of a group of 12 convicted of 'corruption on Earth' and 'enmity against God' over connections to four police killed in January."

3. "Ken Jennings Says He Cares 'More Deeply' About Trans Rights Than Any Other Issue" (Them, August 3, 2026). "Ken Jennings... recently got into a relatively minor back-and-forth on Bluesky with people who claimed his subscriptions to the New York Times were supporting an anti-transgender media organization.... Would I subscribe to the New York Times? No. Would I unfriend someone who did? Not necessarily.... Do I do the crossword puzzle? Yes, because nothing else quiets the anxiety I feel about living in our current reality quite like trying to find a five-letter word for boredom. Ah, 'ennui,' my old friend."

4. "The Woody Guthrie story you’ve probably never heard is deeply Jewish/A documentary recasts the folk singer’s legacy through the influence of his mother-in-law, Yiddish poet Aliza Greenblatt" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 3, 2026). "The film ['Dust Bowls and Jewish Souls: Another Side of Woody Guthrie'] makes the case that Guthrie’s extended Jewish family was not incidental but integral in his artistic and personal evolution. It is a story that stretches from Oklahoma to Coney Island to the Yiddish literary world, and from the folk revival’s Jewish impresarios to one remarkable immigrant woman whose influence has largely gone unrecognized."

5. "Neil Shubin on Trusted Science in a ‘Deeply Partisan Age’/An eminent fossil hunter takes the reins at the National Academy of Sciences in a turbulent moment for American researchers" (NYT, June 2026). "As an institution, we are — by charter and design and history — nonpartisan. But we are in a deeply partisan age. Just by doing our work, we will be viewed in a partisan light no matter what. So our job is to double down on the science. We need to be a trusted source of data."

6. "'I Deeply Believe Dogs Have Superpowers and Secrets’/Prompted by a fierce attachment to his own pet, Paul Yoon wrote a harrowing yet hopeful novel, set during wartime, told from a canine perspective" (NYT, August 2, 2026). "Like his finest literary forebears who have written from a dog’s perspective — Virginia Woolf ('Flush'), John Berger ('King: A Street Story'), Jack London ('Call of the Wild') — Yoon pulls it off without being treacly or condescending.... It helps that Etna can understand everything that’s said by people around him. This was partly a practical choice, as Yoon explains: 'I wanted to create a bridge for the reader to experience this world and this journey.' But, he added, 'I deeply believe dogs have superpowers and secrets.'"

7. "The Deeply Human, Complexly Queer Animated Animals of 'Bouchra'" (autostraddle, August 3, 2026). "In Meriem Bennani and Orian Barki’s bold film Bouchra, an NYC‑based lesbian filmmaker... tries to process her relationship with her Moroccan mother through a semi‑autobiographical meta‑fictional drama stemming from a coming‑out letter she sent nine years prior.... It’s told via anthropomorphic animals in a hyperrealized backdrop.... [E]ntirely animated in Blender, Bouchra’s experimental animal‑filled approach takes some getting used to."

"Govan pushed back on the idea that land art requires plentiful ego. With the typical monument..."

"... he said, powerful people 'caused workers to build things in honor of gods, heroes, battles won and the usual.' Works of land art like 'Star Axis' are 'specks in the scale of the landscape. They’re not monuments to anything except the fragility of our own perception and experience.'"

Govan is Michael Govan, director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

That's from "He’s the Last Great Land Artist You’ve Never Heard of/Charles Ross spent 50 years building 'Star Axis,' a naked-eye observatory in New Mexico. Now his masterwork is ready. How to share it with a changed world?" (NYT).

That's a gift link, and henceforth all NYT links will be gift links. Just yesterday, I was describing the effort of conserving gift links, with only 10 permitted each month, and this morning I wake up to find the new policy is unlimited gift links:

"It’s tempting to treat this as a story of one flawed man and a vetting process that failed.... But the more uncomfortable lesson..."

"... is the one that the Platner boom offered before the bust. The hunger that lifted him — the overflow crowds, the volunteer armies, the sense that here, at last, was someone who meant it — was real.... Handed the chance to litigate what the party actually believes, Democrats have mostly declined.... Mr. Platner’s appeal was never really about oysters or facial hair. It was that he seemed to stand for something. He was angry on voters’ behalf about an economy that seems rigged for the powerful, and he was unafraid to say so. People responded to the promise of conviction. That signal is the one the party ought to be reading. The tragedy of a campaign like his is not only that it collapsed, as it deserved to, but that so much energy was poured into a messenger before anyone was sure of the message...."

So says the New York Times Editorial Board, in "The Democrats Can’t Go On Like This.

So "he seemed to stand for something," but we really don't know what, and instead of letting us argue publicly about what that message was and whether it is what we want, they took out the man. I think they had the ability all along to destroy him as a man, but they propped him up as a man. The Nazi tattoo was somehow okay! But when they decided they needed to replace him (presumably, because he wasn't going to win), they used the personal material to take him out.

Here's how Platner himself explained it as he bowed to the Party's demand that he drop the nomination the primary voters had given him: "I think it's really important to understand why this is happening in the timeline, why this is happening right now.... there is a reason that this is happening now...."

Meade: "Super bloggable, no?" Me: "trying to find an inroad/the photo is overwhelming emotionally"

That's the text conversation here in Meadhouse after I send this to Meade:

 

The eagle — encrusted in gold and seemingly headless — launches into flight, away from us.

Let's see what the particular example of corruption this is — this, the worst example ever. There's never even ever been anything like this. Do you know what example this one is? There have been reactions of horror to so many things Trump has done, but "corruption" is a key hint, suggesting a money grab, and yes, you guessed right, didn't you?

"The US and China 'should be partners and not rivals,' President Xi has said, as he and President Trump exchanged warm words during bilateral talks in Beijing."

"Trump praised his host as a 'great leader' and 'friend,' predicting that their countries would have 'a fantastic future together.' However, Xi warned the two nations could come into conflict if the Taiwan question is 'mishandled.' He told his US counterpart that 'the Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations,' according to remarks published by Chinese state media shortly after talks began.
'If mishandled, the two nations could collide or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a highly perilous situation,' Xi added."

The London Times reports.

I'm quoting the UK newspaper, but I did note the Washington Post and New York Times headlines for this story. Both use the same verb: 

The Washington Post: "Xi warns Trump that mishandling Taiwan could spark 'conflicts.'"

The New York Times: "Xi Warns Trump on Taiwan at Beijing Summit."

Warns. 

That puts Xi in the dominant position. Trump is on the receiving end.

By contrast, the London Times headline is "Xi tells Trump: China and US should be partners, not rivals."

Tells. That makes a difference. I chose the UK newspaper because I'm put off by our own newspapers' endless antagonism toward Trump and seeming desire to cause anxiety to Americans.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday..."

"... claiming that the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' and had discriminated against a white male employee who did not get a sought-after promotion.... The complaint quotes from Times diversity and inclusion reports in recent years, including a 2021 'Call to Action' that set a goal of increasing the number of Black and Latino employees. The reports 'detailed N.Y.T.’s express efforts to make employment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals,' the complaint says. 'A decrease in the percentage of White male employees (whether new hires, existing employees or those in leadership, as appropriate) was a necessary consequence for the N.Y.T. to achieve these results.'..."

The New York Times examines litigation brought against it, in "U.S. Sues The New York Times, Claiming Discrimination Against a White Man/The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' against the man, who did not get a sought-after promotion."

"According to the complaint, the complainant was interviewed for the job but was not selected for a panel interview. 'The four candidates advanced to the panel interview stage matched the race and/or sex characteristics N.Y.T. sought to increase in its leadership,' the complaint says. According to the complaint, the final pool of candidates consisted of 'a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female.'..."

What do you think is more likely?

There was something wrong with that one white male employee who didn't advance to the panel interview.

That one man exemplifies how many white men have fared at the NYT and elsewhere over the years.

 

pollcode.com free polls

On the above-the-fold front page of The New York Times, one story stands out.

Do you see it? When you see it, you will know. It may take a little while, and you will not need to say "Is it 'Republicans Brace for Brutal Midterms'? Or whatever. You will, I think, laugh. Because of course....

The Iran war drops from the top screen of the NYT home page.

It looks like this now:

Not only has the assassination attempt taken over as the top story, priority is given to a revival of immigration enforcement stories, a military strike on a "narco-terrorist" boat, the chair of the federal reserve, and — hard news is such a drag — music, theater, and women's handbags. 

If we scroll down to the bottom half of the home page, we do get to an Iran story, but the tone of the headline is dramatically different: "Iran and U.S. Sink Into Awkward Limbo of 'No War, No Peace.'"

It's not a dire emergency anymore. The war is over. We won. Iran just won't admit it, and we're not going to give them anything for holding out on admitting what is true. No, it doesn't say that. The article, analysis by Erika Solomon, goes with a "both sides" trope:

Trump's 9 posts of the last hour... including, at #7, "A GREAT AND BRILLIANT DAY FOR THE WORLD!"

From his account at Truth Social:

1. "The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear 'Dust,' created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT"

2. "Now that the Hormuz Strait situation is over, I received a call from NATO asking if we would need some help. I TOLD THEM TO STAY AWAY, UNLESS THEY JUST WANT TO LOAD UP THEIR SHIPS WITH OIL. They were useless when needed, a Paper Tiger! President DJT"

3. "Thank you to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar for your great bravery and help! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

4. "Iran, with the help of the U.S.A., has removed, or is removing, all sea mines! Thank you! President DJT"

5. "Again! This deal is not tied, in any way, to Lebanon, but we will, MAKE LEBANON GREAT AGAIN!"

6. "Thank you to Pakistan and its Great Prime Minister and Field Marshall, two fantastic people!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

7. "A GREAT AND BRILLIANT DAY FOR THE WORLD! DJT"

8. "Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

9. "The Failing New York Times, FAKE NEWS CNN, and others, just don’t know what to do. They are desperately looking for a reason to criticize President Donald J. Trump on the Iran situation, but just can’t find it. Why don’t they just say, at the right time, JOB WELL DONE, MR. PRESIDENT, and start to gain back their credibility???"

"Mr. Trump projected sang-froid about it all on Friday. 'I don’t mind anything having to do with Epstein,'"

"But he was talking about it again because of something his wife chose to do. Was he upset that she had single-handedly thrust this story that had so bedeviled him back onto front pages around the globe? 'No,' he said. 'I never get upset.' He said that after he watched Mrs. Trump’s statement, he thought to himself: 'She had a right to talk about it, because the fake news covers her so inaccurately. Would I have done it that way?' the president mused. 'Perhaps not, perhaps, I don’t know.'"

Writes Shawn McCreesh, in "Trump Says First Lady ‘Had a Right’ to Talk About Epstein/President Trump said in an interview that he had known his wife wanted to address rumors about the late sex offender at some point, but that he had not known exactly what she would say" (NYT).

My search of the NYT archive included a term that wasn't in the article: Ungaro. I was looking, as I usually do, for elite media coverage of a story I am seeing in lowlier media, which I generally eschew. In this case, that would be things like "Amanda Ungaro Arrived in the U.S. on Jeffrey Epstein's Plane at 17 — Now She's Going After Melania Trump From Brazil" (Yahoo!news). I guess you can say I'm just seeing one of those things the NYT deems not "fit to print."

Anyway... I enjoy Shawn McCreesh's writing at the NYT. I love the coverage of Trump's enigmatic responses. "I never get upset" — what a perfect answer to the question whether you are upset. It can't be true, but one appreciates the sang-froid.

Great word, sang-froid. Lord Byron used it in Don Juan:

In the mean time, cross-legg'd, with great sang-froid,

     Among the scorching ruins he sat smoking
Tobacco on a little carpet....

"A Visit to the Unabomber Cabin, 30 Years After the Arrest/A complicated piece of American heritage and culture sits intact in the F.B.I. headquarters."

This NYT article is inspiring 2 types of response response from commenters over there.

The first type:

Although this was quite the story 30 years ago, I have no interest in preserving this structure and potentially romanticizing or mythologizing it like we did with the outlaw murderer, Jesse James. Please don't speak of this killers hut in the same breath as Thoreau's or Lincoln's cabins. I say put a match to it and post the video. 

 The second:

Saying this may put me on a list, but everyone should read his manifesto, "Industrial Society and its Future." It's one of the most compelling and profound analyses of what ails the modern world I've ever read. Just to be clear: just because his ideas are worth engaging with doesn't remotely justify his barbaric crimes.

"The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy. It has wrought misery since its revolution 47 years ago — on its own people, on its neighbors..."

"... and around the world. It massacred thousands of protesters this year. It imprisons and executes political dissidents. It oppresses women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and religious minorities. Its leaders have impoverished their own citizens while corruptly enriching themselves. They have proclaimed 'Death to America' since coming to power and killed hundreds of U.S. service members in the region, as well as bankrolled terrorism that has killed civilians in the Middle East and as far away as Argentina. Iran’s government presents a distinct threat because it combines this murderous ideology with nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly defied international inspectors over the years. Since the June attack, the government has shown signs of restarting its pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. American presidents of both parties have rightly made a commitment to prevent Tehran from getting a bomb...."

But "Trump’s Attack on Iran is Reckless," in the estimation of The Editorial Board of the NYT (gift link).

There's a link on "massacred" that goes to another NYT article: "How Iran Crushed a Citizen Uprising With Lethal Force" (gift link).

Unique Way/True and Life.

My son Chris sends another photograph from New York City:

"For people who make and sell beef tallow, a golden age has dawned. Consumers spent $9.9 million on food-grade beef tallow in 2025...."

"Jars of it landed on the shelves of Costco this year, and big retailers like Walmart and Target sell it. Fat Brothers beef tallow sells for almost $20 for 14 ounces on Amazon, and business is brisk... Jenni Harris is a fifth-generation rancher whose father in the late 1990s transformed their small conventional cattle feeding operation in South Georgia to an organic one where cows are raised on pasture. She remembers a time when they had no market for the fat from the animals they slaughtered. 'We damn near gave it away' she said...."

From "Beef Tallow, Long a Health Pariah, Rises to the Top of the Food Pyramid/The new dietary guidelines give federal approval to a fat that has slowly caught on with consumers, even as doctors have warned against it" (NYT).

Have you made the transition from seed oils to beef tallow? Or do you think butter is tracking the new food pyramid well enough? Or do you think this new fat advice is just crazy?

I'm reading the comments over there, including: "The man is barefoot as he stands next to a vat of hot oil while removing a drippy bird. What can go wrong?" And: "Anyone that works over a vat of 400 degree oil barefoot shouldnt be in charge of anything safety-related be it food, drugs, or healthcare."

They're responding to this photo, which is taken from RFK Jr.'s own social media:

And I like the NYT's correction at the bottom: "An earlier version of this article misstated how much consumers spent on beef tallow in 2025. It was $9.9 million, not $900 million." That's kind of a never mind correction. They wrote this whole article about the hot new business that is beef tallow and then it turned out to be on 1.1% of what they thought it was!

What's worse, the Secretary of Health's risky approach to home cooking or The New York Times's embarrassing and extreme botching of the dollar amount as it conducts its supposedly professional journalism?

And by the way, while RFK's feet deserve some attention, a lot of us are noticing his torso. He's 71 years old, and look at him. And he's eating beef tallow.