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."

"Check your luggage before you move," said Brad Pike, the mayor of Eagle, Idaho, and he meant check your luggage for RATS.

I'm reading, "In Idaho’s Suburbs, a Rat Invasion Tests the Limits of Small Government/Irrigation canals around Boise have served as a rat superhighway, bringing an infestation so serious that health officials have floated declaring a public emergency" (NYT).

Most fingers are pointing west, toward California.... Idaho has few native rat species.... Figuring out where they came from has been a popular, if unscientific, pastime in a region undergoing substantial growth and change, much of it driven by people leaving blue West Coast states for ultrared Idaho. Newcomers have brought dizzying change to Idaho. They’ve driven state politics further to the right, added to traffic woes and helped speed the replacement of farmland with subdivisions. Now rats?... 

Kaylee Byers, a public health professor at the University of British Columbia who studied the migration of the rodents in Vancouver, said... “Where you have people, you will have rats”.... The rodents, she added, “are a reflection of us.”

Top-rated comment at the NYT:

"Sen. Jim Justice (R-West Virginia) and I introduced the Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act to allow Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients to use their benefits to buy hot rotisserie chicken."

Writes John Fetterman, singing the praises of working across the aisle, in "John Fetterman: I haven’t changed. Here’s what has. Working across the aisle is the only way forward" (WaPo).

We can work together. We can accomplish something for the people. We can deliver hot rotisserie chicken.

"I think you’ve got to begin by asking yourself, Do you believe that this war is necessary or not?"

"And I think you’ve got to begin by asking yourself, first, Do you believe it’s acceptable for the Iranian regime to have nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them? If you believe that, then the next question you have to ask yourself is: Could we have achieved that goal of eliminating the threat that Iran poses by some other means?... ... I start from the proposition that Iran cannot afford to have nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver those weapons to American cities...."

Said David Boies, interviewed in "Why David Boies Thinks We Should Support Trump’s Iran War/The prominent lawyer says that Democrats should get behind the President, and make sure that he finishes the job" (The New Yorker).

"One of the things about democracies is that the person that you support doesn’t always get elected, but the person who gets elected is nevertheless your President. And, while I think that part of democracy is opposing things that you disapprove of, part of democracy is supporting our elected officials, regardless of whether they are the same party, regardless of whether you agree with them generally, when they are making decisions that you support. I think that we’ve got to find common ground. We have got to get back to the point where we can support people that we oppose.... I didn’t pick Donald Trump as my President, but he is my President."

That interview followed Boies's column in the WSJ, "Partisanship on Iran Is Dangerous for America/Trump is doing the right thing for the U.S., and we Democrats should judge the war on the merits."

"I had not spent a lot of my life hanging out with Republicans, and what I imagined they were talking about was exactly the opposite."

"Now I'm in an administration surrounded by immensely talented people who are immensely idealistic. I always imagined Republicans would get together thinking about how to screw the poor and reduce taxes on the rich, but they're actually narrowly focused on how do we solve these big problems and make our country work. The level of idealism that I see at every level in the White House and in my agency is inspiring. And then the level of capability—the competence of the people I'm surrounded with...."

And a bit earlier in the conversation:

"What's the original version of the adage 'Friends don't let friends [blank]'? Is it about drunk driving? is it 'vote Republican'? What's the first one and where did it go from there?"

Just a random A.I. prompt of mine. That came up this morning.

Yesterday's equivalent was: "What was that hippie poster that was mostly text and included something like and if we find each other it will be beautiful?"

On Thursday, my idle musings got me to: "What is the old waltz most associated with ice skating?"

Without A.I., things like this would float along, fermenting, festering, and maybe one day you'd happen to run into the answer and think aha! I've been wondering about that for the longest time. Now, you can get the answer immediately, and it doesn't amount to much other than that I've destroyed the groundwork for what might have been a delightful aha moment somewhere done the road.

"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:

"They’re trying to turn it into something scary, something sinister. But folks, it’s not really about anything that’s all that complicated."

"At its core, it’s about giving every American an opportunity to be treated with the basic decency, dignity and respect they all deserve."

Said ex-President Joe Biden, about transgender rights, quoted in "Biden Slams Republicans for Using L.G.B.T.Q. Identity as ‘Political Football’/The former president defended his support for transgender rights, a stance that has provoked second-guessing among some Democrats" (NYT).

So it's all very simple and anyone who says otherwise is sinister, and to boil it down to that isn't politicizing anything. It's the other side that's doing the politicizing, those bad people over there. 

I remember when Democrats liked to portray themselves as sophisticated, seeing all the complexity and nuance. Now, they're pushing the idea it's all quite simple. It's black and white. So... binary.

The top-rated comment over there is interesting. Jose writes:

"Republicans and Democrats are now nearly unanimous in believing the other party has gone too far with its rhetoric and are much more likely to think this than in 2011."

"Ninety-four percent of Democrats, compared with 74% in 2011, now say Republicans and their supporters have gone too far, and 93% of Republicans (vs. 63% in 2011) say the same about Democrats and their supporters. In contrast, partisans are disinclined to believe their own party has gone too far with its rhetoric and are no more likely now than in 2011 to hold this view. Today, 36% of Republicans believe the GOP and its supporters’ rhetoric has gone too far, compared with 32% in 2011. And Democrats are less likely now (28%) than in 2011 (45%) to say their party’s rhetoric has been too inflammatory."

From "More Americans Say Political Rhetoric Has Gone Too Far/69% say Republicans', 60% say Democrats' inflammatory criticism of opponents has gone too far" (Gallup).

"[N]o matter the direction of the tragedy, the end result is the same — the right grows angrier at the left, and the left grows angrier at the right...."

"This line of thinking leads in one direction — rationalizing extreme measures in response."

Writes David French in "There Are Monsters in Your Midst, Too" in the NYT.

My ellipsis makes the repetition of the word "direction" seem awkward, but I wanted to highlight directionality.

Since I'm quoting so little of that column, I'm expending one of my gift links on it so you can see the context. 

"Angry Trump Accidentally Blurts Out Unnerving New Plot to Rig Midterms/Donald Trump just gave away his own game."

That's a headline at The New Republic that made me click, and I know I shouldn't reward TNR for its unnerving new plot to rig the attention market, but let's try to understand what "Angry Trump" supposedly has in mind.

I read this article so you don't have to. You already know the context, Trump's Truth Social Post about mail-in voting, which we talked about yesterday, here.

The TNR author, Greg Sargent, is calling attention to the fact that Trump mentioned the 2026 midterms. Trump said he'd sign an executive order "to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections." That's it. That's how "Donald Trump just gave away his own game." He revealed that he saw a causal relationship between his proposed reforms and the coming elections. Of course, Trump doesn't say he wants to rig the midterms for the Republicans. He's claiming to un-rig the elections, and he says "Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM."

Now one might try to say that the elections are not currently rigged. Here's Sargent:

There is overwhelming evidence that any fraud in mail balloting is limited to nonexistent. Indeed, it’s now beyond obvious that the pretext is the thing to watch.

I love when the author says something is "beyond obvious" and I can't even understand what he's talking about, but let's read on: 

"President Trump said on Truth Social on Monday that he would 'lead a movement' to get rid of mail-in ballots and would sign an executive order..."

"... to help bring what he described as honesty to the 2026 midterm elections. Mr. Trump has long opposed mail-in voting, though Republicans made electoral gains in 2024 by embracing the practice."

Says the NYT.

I'm skeptical of the implication in that last sentence, that mail-in voting is better for Republicans than it is for Democrats. I think the 2024 gains only show that if there is mail-in voting, Republicans will do better if they encourage their supporters to use that method, rather than to wait for Election Day and to vote in person. But I would imagine that if general mail-in voting is eliminated and most people can only vote in person, Republicans might be even better off. Why would that be? Some people will say, because mail-in voting is used to cheat in various ways. Whatever the extent of the cheating, there's also the energy and enthusiasm it takes to vote in person. Shouldn't both parties insist that they don't want to cheat, only to keep the other side from cheating, and claim that their supporters are strongly committed and not lackadaisical? 

Here's the full text of Trump's Truth Social Post:

"How the Hell To Teach Constitutional Law in 2025: Twenty Questions and No Answers."

Written by Eric Segall, at Dorf on Law.

I don't teach anymore, so I don't need to answer question like this, but I'd actually love the opportunity to work this out, and I'll bet there are a lot of younger law school graduates who have the energy and dedication and brains to figure out how to teach conlaw these days. Maybe those of you who are worn out should consider retiring. Oddly enough, when I decided to retire, it was the fall of 2016, and I was sure that Hillary Clinton was about win the election and that after she appoints the successor to Justice Scalia, with 5 strong liberals on the Supreme Court, constitutional law was going to become very boring.

Much of the bulk of Segall's 20 questions is a longstanding problem in conlaw: There's too much material to cover everything or even to cover anything with enough depth. But the argument that we've got a special problem right now is summed up in the first 2 questions:

"[George Magazine's] purportedly post-partisan stance seemed to many people naïve."

"'Ultimately, you can’t have a political magazine that doesn’t have a politics,' Victor Navasky, then the publisher of The Nation, told The New York Times in an article headlined 'George Wins Readers, but Little Respect.' Arguably, the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal was the publication’s undoing. In the spring of 1998, when the independent counsel Ken Starr was deep in his investigation of the Clinton White House, George published a puffy cover story on the film 'Primary Colors,' an adaptation of the roman à clef about Mr. Clinton’s 1992 campaign. (For a brief while, America had its own Elena Ferrante in Joe Klein). The magazine further showed its hand when it referred to the under-fire president as the 'chief charmer.' When Mr. Kennedy and his staff tried to cover the imbroglio, they made choices that would now seem cringe, like publishing a write-around article about Ms. Lewinsky’s past accompanied by a full-page caricature of her biting into a hot dog."

From "The Lasting Appeal of John F. Kennedy Jr./A CNN documentary and an upcoming series by Ryan Murphy delve into the nation’s most famous son, who remains fixed in the 1990s" (NYT)(gift link, so you can see the whole story... and all the beefcake pix of the famously gawked-at boy).

Why is it so difficult to find that caricature of Monica Lewinsky biting into a hot dog?

Google gives me 2 pix of Obama stuffing something into his mouth and one of Reagan. This is the most obvious caricature idea for Lewinsky. You'd think dozens of lame efforts would show up in this search. And George Magazine published one. Where is it? Is Google caring for our presumed devotion to the beloved boy? I mean John John. Not that rogue Bill!

"Colbert gets no advertising and late night is a tough spot. Colbert might be No. 1, but who watches late night TV anymore?"

Said an unnamed person who, the NYT Post assures us, knows what he's talking about, quoted in "CBS canned ‘The Late Show’ over tens of millions in financial losses annually — not Stephen Colbert’s politics: sources."

Millions = between $40 million and $50 million a year.

Are these losses because people just don't watch what's "on TV" anymore? We've lost the habit of winding down at the end of the evening with the talk shows the network runs in that time slot? Or is there a problem of Colbert's show leaning to one side politically and spurning the opportunity to appeal to half the people in the country? 

RedBird’s Jeff Shell, the former head of NBCUniversal who will run the network once the [Skydance-Paramount] deal is done, has been crunching the numbers and finding that CBS is a “melting ice cube” with its losses and cost overruns, a source said. The plan is to enhance CBS Sports and invest in “truth-based” news at a network that conservatives have long ripped for its alleged liberal bias.

Are those the scare quotes around "truth-based"? Much as the quotes made me laugh and want to poke fun, I think they are more likely to signify that the Post is quoting Jeff Shell. Same thing with "melting ice cube." I don't think the Post was trying to help us idiots understand that that CBS is not literally a melting ice cube. They were just giving Jeff Shell credit for the turn of phrase. Now, the interesting question becomes what does Shell, who's about to be running the network, think "truth-based" means?

The Post has learned that Ellison is now telling people that with the [Trump's] lawsuit settled the Skydance-Paramount deal will get FCC approval by mid-August.

Ellison = Skydance CEO David Ellison, "the son of Donald Trump pal and tech billionaire Larry Ellison. 

While Ellison is predicting imminent regulatory approval, it will come at a cost: FCC chairman Brendan Carr is likely to demand conditions to remedy what he believes is left-wing news bias in programming that violates agency “public interest” rules that govern local broadcasting as opposed to cable.

More quotation marks. I'm just going to guess that the highly abstract term "public interest" is something in the vicinity of "truth-based." Or... maybe it's something more like the word that got us started on Stephen Colbert — "truthiness."

"Truthiness" was The Word of the Year 2006. Colbert launched it thusly, back when he began his excellent show "The Colbert Report":

And on this show, on this show your voice will be heard... in the form of my voice. 'Cause you're looking at a straight-shooter, America. I tell it like it is. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I will speak to you in plain simple English.

And that brings us to tonight's word: truthiness.

Now I'm sure some of the Word Police, the wordanistas over at Webster's, are gonna say, "Hey, that's not a word." Well, anybody who knows me knows that I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn't true, or what did or didn't happen. Who's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that's my right. I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart.

ADDED: Here's Colbert, in July 2016, relocated to "The Late Show," talking about his old word "truthiness" and presented the new word "Trumpiness":

"The only thing that might make a quiz show seem political is if you’re living in an era where there’s one side of the political spectrum that benefits from depreciating knowledge, the importance of knowledge and fact itself.”

"And I’m afraid that is happening in a lot of fields today. Government policy used to be based on settled scientific consensus in fields — just basic things, like climate is changing, or vaccines help prevent disease. This should just be base-line stuff. And now, apparently, it’s very partisan to believe either of those things. Legal facts like birthright citizenship, or facts from the headlines like who won the 2020 election — these are not just contested things; now they are litmus tests for a certain kind of tribalism, and that’s terrible for a society. A society can’t stand with that kind of disagreement over what is true and what is error, and honestly, one great thing about quiz shows is we are a little microenvironment where these facts do have right answers and wrong answers. And they all get resolved in a matter of seconds. Someone will buzz in, and they are either right or wrong."

Writes Ken Jennings, in "'Jeopardy!' Is a Reminder That Facts Are Fun — and Essential/According to the host Ken Jennings, trivia is overlooked as a 'great social force'" (NYT).

Only "one side of the political spectrum" is "depreciating knowledge, the importance of knowledge and fact itself"? Or does it just seem that way from the point of view of the other side?

And the reason "Jeopardy!” is "a little microenvironment where these facts do have right answers and wrong answers" is because only unquestionable facts can be used as answers on the show. It's not that there isn't other material — facts yet to be nailed down and unknown and unknowable things of all kinds — it's that the other material isn't the stuff of "Jeopardy!" answers.

Yes, it's nice to appreciate the solidity of the facts that do make it onto the answer board, but that's not a basis for maligning the people who doubt and debate about what's true.

Uninvited from the picnic and wondering why things can't be more highbrow.

JUST IN - SENATOR RAND PAUL: "I've just been told that I've been uninvited from the [White House] picnic...every Democrat will be invited, every Republican invited, but I will be the only one disallowed. I just find this incredibly petty."pic.twitter.com/rXTIDuXIeq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 11, 2025

"I'm a big boy and we can go have a picnic in another park, you know we can go to the mall but it's just really kind of sad that this is where we are.... I mean literally every Democrat is invited, every Republican is invited, and to to say that my family's no longer welcome kind of sad. Actually, my grandson has a Make America Great hat. My son and daughter-in-law, they like Donald Trump. I like Donald Trump, but when they want to act this way, it's where they begin to lose a lot of America who just wonders: Why does everything have to descend to this level? Why can't anything be more highbrow and more of a intellectual discussion where we have a disagreement but it doesn't have to descend to this?

UPDATE: Of course, Rand Paul is invited, says Trump at Truth Social:

Of course Senator Rand Paul and his beautiful wife and family are invited to the BIG White House Party tonight. He’s the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn’t he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women. It will help to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! I look forward to seeing Rand. The Party will be Great!

"My party loses the moral high ground...."

I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that.

This is anarchy and true chaos.

My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement. pic.twitter.com/pPYbvP6xR0

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 10, 2025

What did John Fetterman say about the riots in the summer of 2020?

"Eisenhower said that politics is like the road, the left, the right is the gutter, and the center is drivable."

"And it's exactly the way it is in politics. You have to understand that there's a sweet spot. You know, like the teaching in golf, hit the sweet spot, or in tennis to hit the sweet spot. All this, there's a sweet spot to find exactly so you can get a deal made... It's not exactly your way.... I wanted to wipe out, you know, the deficit. And I was not able to do that with all these Democrats around it. They, they love to spend money. So, so, so I was, I was stuck with it. So, but the fact of them is we could improve the situation and I was able to work together with the Democrats on environmental issues and infrastructure issues... education and all of this stuff. And we, we, we did really fine and had a great time up there being governor of the state of California.... You have to face reality. The trick is just to be, to not hate the other side because they think differently. It's just kind of like figuring out how can we work together and how can we do something that's really good for the people...."

Said Arnold Schwarzenegger, on Theo Von's podcast the other day.

"The long con of the left is corruption of the judiciary.... It has been brewing in legal academia for 20 to 30 years."

Says Elon Musk.

The left-wing ideology says the right-wing ideology is an even longer con.

Everyone's ideology says the other side's ideology is a con.

Overheard on the street during the Wisconsin protests of 2011: "All the assholes are over on the other side."