"Whereas clowns were naive idiots, bouffons savagely undermined the people in power."

"They were doing something important: using biting and at times cruel humor to undermine systemic injustice. It’s what satirists have done throughout history.... Ali G is a white imbecile—a delusional cultural appropriator—who steals the fashion and lyrics from his favorite gangsta rap and dancehall idols, from Compton to Kingston.... Like a good bouffon, he undermines that establishment—not the culture he loves and borrows from.... Each of my characters has a specific mechanism to encourage people to drop their guards and show what they really believe, prejudices and all. Borat, an antisemitic journalist, exposes Jew hatred, xeno­phobia, sexism, and casual racism. Erran Morad, a stereotype of a tough-guy Israeli commando—'I’ve been in 14 terror attacks,' he says in my new movie Ali G: Who Iz I?, 'and started two'—exposes Islamophobia.... Ali G works on another level. He’s not extreme—he’s just extremely dumb. But his absurd questions lead powerful people to underestimate him and answer in earnest, revealing their own biases...."

Writes Sacha Baron Cohen, in "Why Satire Is No Laughing Matter" (Time). 

According to Baron Cohen, the "bouffon" is a "tradition dated back to 11th century France, where societal outcasts—gay people, heretics, those with deformities—would be let back into their villages once a year to put on shows viciously mocking the ruling class."

I noticed that Time essay because of "What to Know About ‘Ali G: Who Iz I?’ Sacha Baron Cohen has revived his fictional wannabe rapper in a new movie that will be in theaters for just this weekend. Here’s what to know" (NYT).

Here's an excerpt from that (showing why Baron Cohen is highly motivated to justify his continuation of the Ali G character):

"There is a foreign manipulation of the information which has given rise to stupid and unacceptable comments from many people, including foreign leaders...."

"All the people who speak ill of our country at the moment, they are people who do not like France. Those people annoy me.... In these moments you see who likes France and who does not. All the people who speak badly of us now do not like our country."

Said French President Macron, quoted in "‘Stupid’ of Trump to blame immigration for riots, suggests Macron/French president singles out ‘those in campaign mode’ in swipe at Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanhayu’s comments on migrants and Muslims" (London Times).

What Trump said was: "France is burning. The immigration of people from an entirely different world, people with hatred in their hearts, has shattered that once great country. Close your Borders and take control, before it is too late!"

And, at a campaign rally, he said France is being “conquered, looted, and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists, and communists.”

Meanwhile, Netanyahu attributed the rioting to an “invasion of extremist Islam.”

"Entertainment and the arts are undergoing what might be termed a Great Simplification."

"Take the Netflix film 'Irish Wish,' which ranked No. 1 on the streaming platform following its release in 2024. The film stars Lindsay Lohan as an American book editor named Maddie, who travels to Ireland dreaming of marriage to a hunky best-selling author (a genre of person more common in films than in life). As writer Will Tavlin observed, as you watch, you may notice that the characters are explaining what is going on, as if you are too slow to understand. In one scene, Maddie says to her lover, 'We spent a day together. I admit it was a beautiful day, filled with dramatic vistas and romantic rain, but that doesn’t give you the right to question my life choices. Tomorrow I’m marrying Paul Kennedy.' He replies, 'Fine. That will be the last you see of me because after this job is over, I’m off to Bolivia to photograph an endangered tree lizard.'"

Writes James Marriot, in "Is society growing stupider? The clues are simple and repeated. Shorter sentences and monotonous lyrics form a sign of something bigger" (WaPo)(gift link).

Speaking of shorter sentences, yesterday, I happened to run across this long sentence:

"I say fling but he only worked like a dog in parkinglots, the most fantastic parkinglot attendant in the world, he can back a car forty miles an hour into a tight squeeze and stop on a dime at the brickwall, and jump out, snake his way out of close fenders, leap into another car, circle it fifty miles an hour in a narrow space, shift, and back again into a tight spot with a few inches each side and come to a bouncing stop the same moment he’s jamming in the emergency brake; then run clear to the ticket shack like a track star, hand a ticket, leap into a newly arrived car before the owner is hardly out, leap literally under him as he steps out, start the car with the door flapping and roar off to the next available parking spot: working like that without pause eight hours a night, evening rush hours and after theater rush hours, in greasy wino pants with a frayed furlined jacket and beat shoes that flap."

Wrote Jack Kerouac, typing "On the Road: The Original Scroll." I'm fascinated by the readability of very long sentences, but that one struck me (at 40 mph) because I have a long-running debate with Meade about whether good drivers back into parking spaces. 

"His gray compact S.U.V. accelerated past shelves of pumpkin spice Cheerios and Special K cereal boxes...."

"The vehicle came to rest near a display of Halloween candy after careening beneath a sign over the doorway that reads: 'Thanks for shopping, y’all!'..."

From "A Driver Desperate to Use the Bathroom Plows Into a Kroger in Texas, the Police Say/The driver, James Mansell Lancaster Jr., was upset to find the supermarket in Rosenberg, Texas, closed early Sunday morning, the police said" (NYT).

"Mr. Lancaster stayed at the scene, according to the police.... 'All he said was the doors were locked and he had to use the restroom,' Lieutenant Munoz said.... Kroger does not plan to release security camera footage of the crash..."

I found the footage:

"Whenever something is exclusive, limited and luxurious, automatically consumer psychology wants it."

"It’s like handbags. Why is someone buying a Chanel versus that? It’s not because of the leathers. It’s to show that they have a Chanel and they can afford it."

Says Nabila Popal, a director of a market research firm, quoted in "Foldable Phones Are Unpopular. Why Is Apple Selling One? The company unveiled a new iPhone that costs $1,999. Here are the economics behind that price tag" (NYT gift link).

I think some high-priced things evoke laughter and You bought that?!

To get you started thinking of some of these things, I found "Wastes of Money Sold to You by Luxury Retailers" (Cheapism). I kind of want the hippopotamus sofa.

3 outlooks on beauty.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tim Hussey (@timhusseyart)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mr. Psychology (@mister_psychology)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Bruce Robinson (@brucerobinsonofficial)

"Mirror," the tag.

That last post really needed the tag "mirror." How did I come so far without a tag for mirror? I made one, then had 22+ years of the blog to search to add the tag retrospectively. It was easy to search for the word "mirror," but hard to separate the posts that deserved the tag — the ones referring to the object, a mirror — from the ones that did not — the ones using "mirror" as a dying metaphor (ideas "mirror" other ideas and so forth). And then there's the drudgery of adding the tag and republishing. But in the end, there's the fun of clicking on the tag and peering into the kaleidoscope.

There was "Fun with Mirrors" in 2008:

There was, also in 2008, the convex mirror I loved and wanted to buy:

"It's expensive — over $1800 — but as I thought about possibly buying it, I realized what I wanted it for was to take pictures, and therefore what I really should buy is a fisheye lens for my Nikon D50." So I got that fisheye lens. If you're nostalgic for those days, click the tag "fisheye." 

There was this advice about dolphins, in 2014: "People, can you just leave the dolphins alone? They don't want to swim with you, despite the 'expression' you see on their faces. The love you think you are experiencing is nothing more than self-love. Stay home, save your money, and stare in a mirror until you get a deep, accurate assessment of how true your self-love is. Is there a fixed smile on your face? I hope not, but if there is, it's not because you share the spirit of the dolphin. The dolphin is 'smiling' because nature played a dirty trick on him, drawing idiot humans into his domain. Get out. Leave the dolphin alone."

There was the mystery of what a monkey sees in a mirror, back in 2005: "What's in the monkey's mind when he looks in a mirror? Higher minds -- human beings, great apes, dolphins -- figure out, when they are looking in a mirror, that they are seeing themselves. Other animals, it's long been thought, think they're seeing a stranger. But a new study shows that the monkey occupies a middle position, where it doesn't see itself, but it doesn't see a stranger either. The monkey sees a 'Puzzling Other.'"

In 2024, I had Grok outline a book for me. It was titled "Through the Glass/Exploring Mirrors as Portals to Other worlds."

I was surprised to see that, back in 2013, I'd contributed to my long-running men-in-shorts theme with this stark advice: "Take a good look at yourself in the mirror when you've got your shorts on. Ask yourself if I were a woman, would I fuck me?"

There was this good question, in 2013: "If someone holds up a mirror and you say 'I look like an idiot,' is the mirror-holder calling you an idiot?"

There was the sunset in my rear-view mirror as I drove 500 miles to see Meade in 2009:

Get ready. It's coming. That thing you thought you wanted.

This will be such a nightmare. pic.twitter.com/qrD03wxEdl

— Julian Mille☈ (@ATLAreaWx) July 14, 2026

Children going to school in the dark. Dangerous. It will become obvious. A child's name will be on the repeal legislation.

ADDED: It’s important to note that morning light does not begin at sunrise. It’s already getting light an hour before sunrise, and half an hour before sunrise you’re free of the sense that you’re going out into the night. Using the sunrise as the time that matters is alarmist.

"A woman caught on video emptying a public trash can on the street then stealing it during New York City’s Knicks championship parade was a director at JPMorgan Chase who was fired Tuesday over the incident...."

The NY Post reports.

Angie Báez, 40, was promoted to Executive Director of Community and Industry Engagement for Card and Connected Commerce at JPMorgan Chase more than a year ago, according to her LinkedIn profile. She previously served as Executive Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at New York-based review website The Infatuation, which Chase acquired as part of its broader push into lifestyle and experiential content...

What's "experiential content" and why am I "experiencing" that as bullshit?

Here's the viral video:

@mel_aston Those trash cans didn’t stand a chance 😭😭 I don’t condone the bullying of this woman. I’m not going for it!! #knicks #knicksparade #knicksin5 #nyc #fyp ♬ original sound - Melrose Aston

"What's 'experiential content' and why am I 'experiencing' that as bullshit?" is the one question I took to Grok. If I understand it correctly, instead of marketing the product itself, consumers are invited to picture themselves living some kind of life that somehow relates to the product. The honest restaurant content will, supposedly, be woven together with references to Chase cards. Even though Grok told me "It's not 'bullshit' as a pure concept" — because it can work as a marketing technique — it's obviously a bullshit expression designed to elevate a practice that deserves ridicule.

But you would probably prefer to ridicule this lady who did something stupid and who, you may think, doesn't deserve her job, and you probably think it's her job, her erstwhile job, that sounds like bullshit.

"Trump administration officials have pressed the office responsible for printing the nation’s money to design a $250 bill featuring the president’s portrait..."

"... according to four current and former employees, in what would be the first appearance of a living person on U.S. currency in more than 150 years.... The employees spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution."

The Washington Post reports. Gift link.

I find this hard to believe. It's such a bad idea. I prefer to think it's just not true.

No living person has appeared on U.S. currency since 1866, when it was outlawed after the image of a mid-level Treasury bureaucrat showed up on a 5-cent note. Legislation that would allow Trump to appear on a $250 bill was introduced in Congress last year to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary but has languished. In a statement, a Treasury Department spokesperson said the printing office “is conducting appropriate planning and due diligence” in response to the proposed legislation. “Should this legislative mandate be signed into law, the BEP is moving proactively to produce a $250 commemorative note which will appropriately recognize the 250th Anniversary of our great nation,” the statement said.

So it is, essentially, not true. They went through the exercise of creating the note that might be issued if Congress passes a law permitting it, which is not going to happen. So meanwhile, you can see the thing and celebrate or get steamed up or whatever this latest provocation moves you to do.

Is that his mugshot?!

"The worst part about AI is that it is giving the experience of competence to people who are stupid."

"These people who now are firing off 30-page Claude AI slop documents and they think they're smart and brilliant. They're following up with you, asking you to read them, and you check them out. None of it makes sense! These are people who, before AI, they were incompetent people. They couldn't even make a document, they couldn't write a good 2-page document, they couldn't organize their thoughts. Because they couldn't do that, they actually couldn't produce any output. And now they can produce output. They produce extremely long outputs that are terrible. It's because they, for the first time in their lives, have the experience of competence. It's making the rest of us miserable."

Says Jake Abrams, on TikTok. I prefer to read his comment as text, but you might want to observe him and see if it affects your reaction to what he's saying. I saw this first as video and decided to blog it but took the trouble to make a transcript because I find the video distracting. He drops the microphone at the end.

Clearly, he thinks he is one of the smart people. He doesn't like the stupid people horning in on the space that belonged to him and his people — you know, the ones who were always producing documents that gave off the impression of competence. Have those documents been making much sense? Were they concise? 

Now that everyone can produce long documents that look good superficially, what's going to happen? If people continue to read documents, will they separate out the search for what was written by A.I. or will they judge everything skeptically? It's more likely that they will use A.I. to read the documents and to assess them critically. In the end, who's going to feel that they are "smart and brilliant"? Is Abrams afraid that those he wants to view as stupid, perhaps because they didn't go to a good college, are going to play the game of using A.I. better than those who thought they had it made because they did go to a good college?

We'll see who picks up the tools and uses them best. 

A thoroughly idiotic question at CNN's California gubernatorial debate: Who would you want to play you in a movie about you?

This is just so terribly bad. It's also an unfair softball because it's so easy for the 2 Hispanic males. They both say Antonio Banderas. Watch the nonsense:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by CNN (@cnn)

If you're going to have a movie question for a potential governor of California, it ought to be something substantive about the movie business, but "California Gubernatorial Candidates Bicker and Squabble, But Say Little About Hollywood/The demise of a flagship industry drew little attention in Tuesday’s CNN debate" (Hollywood Reporter).

"Rory wins again…I think. CBS missed the last 4 shots. I guess that’s what happens when you have one camera covering the course and the rest pointing at teenagers watching the broadcast in Ireland."

One fan posted, quoted in "CBS bashed for botching Rory McIlroy’s Masters-winning shots" (NY Post).

"These nails are sported by nurses in hospitals who, because of these stupid encumbrances glued to the ends of their fingers, cannot properly perform one of the key hygienic routines..."

"... that has been a simple, essential part of infection prevention in medical practice for decades: thorough hand-washing. First line of defense, proven useful for generations. Hospital management has gutlessly acquiesced to this ridiculousness because these days, everyone has 'rights.'Except, apparently, patients who wish to not contract an infection during their hospital stay…."

From the comments section at the NYT article about those very long, overdecorated fake nails —  "Manicures Fit for the Met Gala/Whether at hospitals or on red carpets, people with manicures by Yulenny Garcia, a nail technician in the Bronx, turn heads."

Another comment: "I like the creativity but as a physician… I despair when I see these talons on fashion and entertainment industry folks. Not healthy at all. Just pull up any study on synthetic nails in pubmed. Just imagine HRs in hospitals have given up on young RNs to abide by the no long-nail rules… these nails can cut through gloves and in one case recently caused a rectal tear in a patient. Just think, everyone does them, so how are you going to stop this? Not happy, this is being highlighted...."

"The bachelor banker admitted to Interview magazine that he had not yet made it onto the elite dating app Raya, confessing that he only uses Hinge."

"Nelson, a dirty vodka martini enthusiast, listed swanky Manhattan spots Jac’s on Bond, Bar Pisellino, and Mace as the top places that he would take any lady lucky enough to match with him.... Johnson, a Dallas native, laid out his thoughts on crypto investing and AI, but also confessed to buying 'a painting for $1,400 that is simply a bunch of lines.' He says he owns 'approximately six vests and seven Vineyard Vines quarter zips': an essential part of any finance bro’s wardrobe when kicking off their career on Wall Street. Barclays associate vice president Tommy Doherty, who said he owns up to ten vests, tells Interview readers that they should 'know your risk tolerance and have a well-diversified portfolio.'"

I'm reading "Baby-faced Goldman Sachs bankers could be fired over ‘unauthorized’ magazine photo shoots: sources" (NY Post).

"Unauthorized" is in quotes because, as the last line of the article says, "It is unclear whether Johnson and Doherty obtained approval to be interviewed by the magazine." I'll bet they were authorized and that Goldman Sachs likes getting inane publicity in this form. It's Interview magazine, and the guys are good looking — and they have vests!!! and quarter zips!!!

As for the type of painting that is "simply a bunch of lines." I looked:

Ha ha. Everything turns back on itself these days. In the early days of image searching, I think I'd have turned up something more like Cy Twombly.

Anyway, here's the original Interview article, formatted nicely, with all the "Finest Boys in Finance" answering the same small set of questions, including"What’s the most you’ve spent on something stupid?" 

"Can I ask a question I have been dying to ask? You all might think it is a weird question but I've always been curious. What is your favorite time of day?"

That's the utterly inane question Dana Perino asked Melania Trump on "The Five":

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on television. I don't intentionally watch news on TV — sometimes it overflows onto me — so I'm not the best judge of how close to the bottom that is. 

For the record of things no one needs to know, Melania's favorite time of day is "very early morning." Why? Because it's quiet, you have your coffee, and you check your email.

ADDED: Of course, the film is getting terrible reviews — for example, "Melania review – First Lady is a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness in this ghastly bit of propaganda," by Nick Hilton in The Independent: 

In the world of Chappell Roan, Brigitte Bardot might as well be Milkshake Duck.

I'm reading "Chappell Roan walks back tribute to Brigitte Bardot over late star’s 'insane' beliefs" (NY Post).

It looked like this on Instagram:

Quick turnaround. 4 minutes. Made me think of Milkshake Duck:

But "Red Wine Supernova" came out in 2023. It begins "She was a playboy/Brigitte Bardot/She showed me things...." The reference to Bardot is not obscure, but in your face, line 1. Chappell Roan has been trading on that famous name for 2 years.

Bardot has openly expressed the ideas that got her accused of racism since 2 years before Chappell Roan was born. (Bardot published "Mon cri de colère" ("My Cry of Anger") in 1996.)

How is it that no one told Chappell Roan that Brigitte Bardot was something more than a sex object until Roan made herself part of the story of Bardot's death?!

"In his satirical 'Dictionary of Received Ideas'... Flaubert offered up a range of definitions embodying the stupid notions that silly people too readily accept."

"...  'Art': 'Leads to poorhouse. What use is it, since machines can do things better and quicker?' ... 'Bird': 'Wish you were one, saying with a sigh: "Oh, for a pair of wings!" This shows you have a poetic soul.'... By mocking these thoughts, we push ourselves past them. From this perspective, our sense that we’re getting stupider may simply reflect our determination to be smart."

Writes Joshua Rothman, in "Are We Getting Stupider? Stupidity is eternal—and more complex than we think" (The New Yorker).

"Dictionary of Received Ideas' — link goes to full text — is one of the few books that has its own tag on this blog: here. It's long been one of my favorite books, and you may have noticed my various proposals for entries in a new Dictionary of Received Ideas. If you get Flaubert's idea, maybe you can help me write this volume for my shelf of Unwritten Books. 

Actually I don't think Rothman conveys Flaubert's idea accurately. Here's a new New Yorker piece from 2013 (by Teju Cole), which explains the "Dictionnaire des Idées Reçues" like this:  "What galls Flaubert most is the inevitability, given an action, of a certain standard reaction. We could learn from his impatience: there are too many standard formulations in our language. They stand in place of thought, but we proclaim them each time—due to laziness, prejudice, or hypocrisy—as though they were fresh insight."

Anyway, what's Rothman's point about our possibly becoming stupider? He writes: 

"Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person?"

Trump just made this reporter reevaluate her life 😂

Q: "Why do you blame the Biden Admin?"

Trump: "Because they let them in. Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? And you're just asking questions because you're a stupid person!" 💀 pic.twitter.com/s97shKW0yd

— Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) November 28, 2025

"Why do you blame the Biden Admin?"/"Because they let them in. Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? And you're just asking questions because you're a stupid person!"

Presented for your contemplation, not to indicate my approval (or disapproval!).

***

I'm giving this my "civility bullshit" tag because the topic of "civility bullshit" is in play. That is, Trump doesn't fall for civility bullshit. You can't persuade him to be civil because he (correctly) observes that the other side will not be civil toward him and he will not unilaterally disarm. I think his incivility invariably — or almost invariably — comes only after someone has shown incivility toward him. 

If it wasn't viewpoint discrimination but actually some violation of the terms of the permit, I think they would have articulated the violation...

... so that we wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's viewpoint discrimination. But with the failure to to articulate the violation, I think we are entitled to presume it was viewpoint discrimination. No jumping required.

That's my response to "Park Service removes statue of Trump and Epstein from National Mall/The statue, the latest installation by an anonymous group of artists critical of the president, was supposed to be on display until 8 p.m. Sunday" (WaPo)(gift link):

The National Park Service removed a statue of President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands from the National Mall early Wednesday morning, a day after it was placed there. 'The statue was removed because it was not compliant with the permit issued," Interior Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace said in an email. She did not respond to follow-up questions about how or why the statue was not in compliance or if the department had provided the required 24-hour written notice before revoking the permit....

Carol Flaisher, a D.C.-based location manager, filed the permit application with the National Park Service on behalf of the artists who created the statue. She said that in over 40 years of working with the Park Service arranging installations and filming, she has never had a permit revoked.

The permit issued to Flaisher says: “Superintendent may revoke this permit at any time after providing 24 hours’ written notice to the Permittee setting forth the reasons for the revocation.”

Yeah, it's a stupid statue. But now the stupidity of the government has turned it into a monument to freedom.

ADDED: Reading more of the article, I see: "In a video of the statue’s removal provided to The Washington Post, a National Park Service official can be seen saying that the installation is 'out of compliance' because it is several feet larger than stated in the permit. The video was taken by a security team member who had been assigned to monitor the statue as required by the permit."

If that's the answer, why didn't Interior Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace put that in her original email response to The Washington Post? Why did she not respond to the follow-up questions if there is such an easy answer? If she cared about the First Amendment or if this really was the true answer, why wasn't she eager to provide it?

I see that "Flaisher said there was a height discrepancy because the base of the statue was not included in the permit approval. But she said no objections were raised when the statue was placed on the Mall, and she was never informed there was an issue."

So is it to be all about the plinth?