NBC’s Steve Kornacki at a loss for words.

NBC’s Steve Kornacki reacts to the USB drives that were missing election data in Wisconsin.

“Are you serious? They have to do… God… Okay…” pic.twitter.com/Byj6KQJBX9

— Brandon Doggett (@brandondoggett) August 12, 2026

"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. 

"Democrats stopped talking about trans politics long before the court’s ruling this week."

"In June, which is L.G.B.T.Q. Pride month, no Democratic candidate mentioned the word 'transgender' in their TV ads, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm. Their silence may be an attempt to deprive Republicans of campaign-trail ammunition.... A New York Times/Ipsos poll conducted in January 2025 showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans opposed allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports.... May Mailman, director of the conservative legal organization Independent Women’s Law Center, said the ruling was less animating than it might have been a few years ago, because transgender advocacy feels 'less in your face' now, particularly in red states. Ms. Mailman recalled walking into retail stores across the country back when gender was one of the party’s most galvanizing topics and seeing mannequins of transgender people. That sort of display has become less prevalent, she said, as the opinion of most Americans has become clearer. By winning in the court of public opinion, Republicans in some ways lost ground on a potent political issue, she said.... 'It’s kind of like D.E.I.,' Ms. Mailman said.... 'Is D.E.I. gone, or is it hibernating?'"

From "Ruling on Trans Athletes Gave the G.O.P. a Win. Most Democrats Looked the Other Way. While Republicans celebrated the ruling, many Democrats stayed quiet on an issue that had proved divisive in the last election" (NYT).

"Blinded by the Flag" by Banksy.

I like the way The Associate Press keeps the soundtrack free of narration telling us what to think. Just stark statue against blue sky and inscrutable faces of people at the foot of the plinth gazing upward.

"Just clarifying, I made this tweet at 5am while playing speed chess, eating mozz sticks.... I didn't mean 'WW3' literally I was being semi-comedically glib."

Everybody's a comedian.

Just clarifying, I made this tweet at 5am while playing speed chess, eating mozz sticks & listening to live updates on the scale of the damage & breadth of countries already getting attacked. I didn't mean "WW3" literally I was being semi-comedically glibhttps://t.co/YhE9AKWFcg pic.twitter.com/4hGYR8h8Ol

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 28, 2026

If you "don't know of a 280 character way of describing whatever this is," there is always the option of saying nothing. I can't copy the tweets of the sayers of nothing, and they can't go viral, but thanks to everyone who's quietly contemplating the situation and hoping for the best.  

Screenshot, in case Benz has the sense to delete it:

Extremely humbled.

For the very concerned media - yes, I love America and was extremely humbled when my friends, the newly minted Gold Medal winners on Team USA, invited me into the locker room to celebrate this historic moment with the boys- Greatest country on earth and greatest sport on earth.…

— Kash Patel (@Kash_Patel) February 23, 2026

Background: "FBI Director Kash Patel defends partying with U.S. Olympic ice hockey team/Videos of Patel celebrating in Italy went viral Sunday night, prompting criticism and questions about his judgment during a critical time for the FBI" (WaPo)(gift link).

The video:

A source sent me this video of FBI Director Kash Patel partying with the US Men's Olympic Hockey team. pic.twitter.com/egjmdhOAF6

— William Turton (@WilliamTurton) February 22, 2026

Meanwhile: "U.S. women’s hockey team declines Trump’s State of the Union invitation/The players 'were honored to be included and are grateful for the acknowledgement,' according to a team statement that cited previously scheduled commitments" (WaPo).

That's putting it very politely.

This is also polite, articulate silence:

Enough of that "and his wife" business.

This is too little too late:

They're playing catch up now, after the arraignment, but decent journalism should have required referring to her by name all along. She was arrested for a reason, so there should be some specificity in the charges against her. Without that, we got the false impression that she was swept in as an appendage of the man.

Every time I heard "and his wife," I thought of the "Gilligan's Island" theme song. The subordination of the female character even in those lyrics has always bugged me.

Now, if you're charged with a crime, you'll prefer to be downplayed, but Cilia Flores doesn't deserve that benefit. 

"I love the Gen Z’s. I love their attitude. They think the world is in a bad place and that we’ve got to make it better."

"That’s their thing. They’re into making things better. I’m a Gen Z, too. I moved to New York from Detroit at 24, and I’m still 24 in my head, so they’re my people. The Gen Z’s only like talking to people their own age, and since they can tell I’m like them, they talk to me. If someone looks over 30, I don’t even interview them.... I never know who these people are. I don’t read the newspaper or follow the news. I cry when I read the news, so why would I? But I don’t get star-struck. Back in the 1970s, I met every celebrity there ever was at Studio 54, where I was a house photographer, so I don’t get star-struck."

Said Judi Jupiter, quoted in "Judi Jupiter, a 76-Year-Old Social Media Star, Is Gen Z at Heart/In the 1970s, she photographed Andy Warhol and Debbie Harry on wild nights at Studio 54. Now she’s chronicling a new generation" (NYT)(that's a gift link, because there are a lot of photos).

And here's her Instagram, so you can check out the videography.

That one quote really struck me: "I don’t read the newspaper or follow the news. I cry when I read the news, so why would I?" It's a good question. You do not have to read the news. You can abstain.

And by the way, you don't have to answer when people prod you to reveal your politics.

"When I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear."

NEW: Sydney Sweeney refuses to apologize for the American Eagle jeans ad after GQ's Katherine Stoeffel continuously tried to get her to cave.

Stoeffel: I mean, Trump tweeted about the jeans ad ... that just seems like a very crazy moment...

Sweeney: It was surreal.

Stoeffel:… pic.twitter.com/F9ihaeMqeq

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 6, 2025

For the Annals of Unsaid Things.

"I don’t believe the White House is involved in that planning … flags have been lowered to half-staff in accordance with statutory law."

Said Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt, quoted in "Dick Cheney, former US vice-president, dies aged 84," teased on the front page of the London Times as "Trump pays no tribute to Dick Cheney after his death."

The Times helpfully notes "US law mandates half-mast for ten days following the death of a vice-president," rubbing it in that Trump is shutting up about Cheney.

Some other headlines: "Karoline Leavitt Dishes Out Ice-Cold Answer on the Death of Dick Cheney" (Mediaite), "Trump White House snubs ex-VP Dick Cheney, offers no condolences on his death" (NY Post), "Dick Cheney’s Death Met With Stone-Cold Reaction From White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt as Donald Trump Stays Mum on the News" (Radar News).

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mediaite (@mediaite)

Rachel Maddow is at a loss for words.

 When she sees her employer on the donor list for the Trump ballroom.

Box ticked.

I'm reading Julia Halperin's "Covering an Artist With Unconventional Materials: Strict Rules and Time/A culture reporter is always watching for art that challenges us to look at the world, and our lives, differently. An artist who lived in a cage for a year ticked that box" (NYT).

Hsieh’s retrospective brings together documentation of and objects from all of his one-year performances. In addition to “Cage Piece,” they include “One Year Performance 1980-1981 (Time Clock Piece),” for which he punched a timecard clock every hour on the hour, including at night; and “Art/Life One Year Performance 1983-1984 (Rope Piece),” for which he spent the year tied to the artist Linda Montano by an eight-foot rope. Hsieh made “One Year Performance 1985-1986 (No Art Piece),” when he refused to look at, think about, talk about or make art. That gallery is empty.... 

Why would someone do these outrageous things? Why are they considered art?... Hsieh resisted answering my questions.... “It’s not like I become Superman,” he told me.

"If your li'l girl comes home and said she was forced to undress in a locker room with a biological boy, what would you say? She's crying!"

I asked Abigail what if one of her girls came home crying because she was forced to undress next to a man.

Her silence speaks volumes. pic.twitter.com/FtkM6ir9KT

— Winsome Earle-Sears (@winwithwinsome) October 9, 2025

Why wasn't the Democrat, Abigail Spanberger, sharp enough to come up with something to say?

I asked Grok to write an answer for Spanberger and got: "I would hug my daughter tight, wipe away her tears, and tell her I love her no matter what. Then I'd explain that everyone deserves to feel safe and respected at school, including transgender kids who are just trying to be themselves. We'd work with the school to make sure there are options like private changing stalls for anyone who needs them, because protecting all our children means building a community where no one is left out or made to feel ashamed."

I was surprised by "I would... tell her I love her no matter what." I think that implies that the mother's first thought is, Oh, no, my daughter is transphobic!

ADDED: Here's the whole debate, and I'm pinpointing the beginning of the locker room talk:

"This is an outrageous assault on our free speech and ability to educate each other. It’s just bonkers to me that the federal government is imposing these kinds of restraints..."

"... that we’re taking away valuable information from our citizens who visit this park, and that we are trying to dumb everyone down and pretend real weather events don’t happen by not letting you read a simple sign."

Said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), quoted in "National parks remove signs about climate, slavery and Japanese detention/The removals come after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March seeking to remove 'improper partisan ideology' from federal institutions."

You have beautiful places, the best land and rocks and trees and waters of America, and because people want to come see these wonders of nature, you see it as opportunity to interpose human messages — negative, downer messages, propaganda — on eyesore signs. Let visitors think their own thoughts, read their own books, and speak to each other about what they think. That's the better free speech and shared education, not the speech by the government that is installed in the form of inert signs. 

Pingree complains that the new policy is "trying to dumb everyone down and... not letting you read a simple sign." But if I'm here for the landscape and the government has put up a political education sign, it's not letting me not see the government's speech.

"This was not a case of we say tomayto, you say tomahto. This was we say tomato, while you cannot say anything these days because of the EU and its rules..."

"... not to mention the repressive government of Great Britain. A citizen of that benighted nation had come to Washington to talk about what he had seen: a fellow named Nigel Farage. 'I have come today to be a klaxon,' he said in his opening remarks. The klaxon appeared in a bright blue suit, telling the story of the Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who was arrested at Heathrow airport this week for something he had said on social media. Linehan had been arrested by five armed police officers, he said. While it is perfectly ordinary for police to be armed to the teeth in the United States, 'it is a big deal in the UK,' he said. 'This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow that has said things online.' American politicians and businesses and all freedom-loving people should say to the British government, "at what point did you become North Korea?"' Farage said."

From "Farage’s rules for free speech: talk about anything but your lunch/The Reform leader defended Democrats’ right to say dreadful things about him — but said some things were better left unsaid" (London Times).

The headline referred to Farage's "discretion" in refusing to say who he needed to leave to have lunch with — clearly, the President.

Also interesting: Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson talked so much, asking questions and interrupting answers, that "Farage asked the chairman if he could go and 'get a cup of coffee or something' until it was his turn to speak."

Here's the video. I love the freeze frame:

"'Stop talking over your brother,' they’d chide. 'I asked him a question.' And I would quieten down, shamed."

"My brother would say nothing, but entreat me with frightened eyes to step in. As a small child, I felt my brother spoke without language. I heard his voice in my head, and I believed I was his translator. To me, this felt natural. It’s easy to scoff – the delusions of childhood – but as toddlers we read everything around us.... Maybe, my brother’s non verbal cues felt like language to me. So much of what is communicated between people involves attunement, a subtle reading of one another’s emotional states, micro-expressions and non verbal cues. Perhaps I just hadn’t learned to distinguish...."

Writes Jessie Cole, in "I spoke for my brother when he was too afraid to answer — now, he speaks in melodies, and I have learned to listen" (Guardian).

Jessie Cole is a writer. Her brother, Jacob Cole, is a guitarist. I'm listening on Spotify, here. 

"We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza."

 That's the official statement, quoted in "Trump leaves G-7 meeting early to deal with Mideast; signs group statement/Trump signed the G-7’s statement backing Israel and criticizing Iran after discussions with other leaders and changes to the initial draft, a U.S. official said" (WaPo).

There's something off about that sentence, and I don't think it's just that "leads" should be "lead." (Subjunctive, right?) I think "urge" seems wrong. 

Who is being urged? Isn't the right word "hope"? We hope that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East.... But to hope in this situation is too passive, and yet, what is going on here except passivity?

And what disturbs me most is that it seems as though they want to urge that there be a "de-escalation," but they are not urging the belligerents to de-escalate now. There's a precondition, "the resolution of the Iranian crisis." So it seems that they are urging that the crisis be resolved, and then hoping that when — if? — that happens, hostilities will de-escalate. That makes the most sense, but it says nothing about what the "resolution" is. The Iran crisis could be resolved through a complete military victory for Israel.

Finally, what is a "broader de-escalation of hostilities"? Hostilities have been escalating. The de-escalation has yet to begin. It's nonsense to speak of something that doesn't exist getting broader. And escalation and de-escalation are metaphors of height, not breadth. Pick one. "Broader de-escalation" also absurdly asks simultaneously for more and for less: We want wider shortness.

This sentence feels as though it began with many different words that have been swapped out for awkward substitutions. We're told Trump wouldn't sign the original draft. I'll bet that was better written, but the edited version we see won Trump's signature. Perhaps he wanted it to say nothing specifically discernible (other than "including a ceasefire in Gaza"). And perhaps he wanted to endorse military victory for Israel — AKA "the resolution of the Iranian crisis" — and didn't want or need to say it outright. He did get the others to sign onto that. 

Donald Trump presents — without a word of commentary — Joe Biden, saying "colored kids."

pic.twitter.com/Y6OFeGKS4l

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2025

What do we think of Joe here? It can't be that he's racist for saying "colored kids." It's not as though Biden is attempting to revive the old expression. It's not like what the other Joe — Joe Rogan — has been doing with the word "retarded." Biden is painting a picture of the past, when he was boy: "I remember seeing kids going by — at the time, called 'colored kids' — on a bus going by." Part of the memory is the memory of what the black children were called. It was the completely common speech of that time and, I believe, the preferred term. Not racist. To cling to it, after the 1950s, became problematic, but Biden isn't clinging to it. He's recreating his boyhood experience, sensing and learning. I think Trump knows all that, and by merely showing the speech and saying nothing, he avoids criticism. He just hangs it out there for people to react to, as if Biden's mere voicing of the now-disfavored words is the same as his actually using the word as his go-to way to refer to black people today. Many will take the bait.

"Bob Woodward has spent an entire career trying to infiltrate groups like this. So how could you possibly have just been added to a group chat?"

The NYT "Daily" podcast interviewer prompts Jeffrey Goldberg, in this morning's new episode, "Inside the Group Chat Planning to Bomb Yemen" (Podscribe).

Goldberg responds: "Yeah. I mean, you know, and, and, and also it's weird that substantive government conversations we taking place over Signal, because Signal is not by the US government standards secure in part because obviously it's open — technically open — to anyone, including yours, truly. And I, I know that previous administrations have used different messaging services, but not for, not for substance. Right? I mean, I think in the Biden administration, it's a, it's a good example. They used Signal. But my impression is based on, on some reporting, my impression is that they use Signal to do things like setting up lunch appointments or, Hey, I've just left Saudi Arabia. I'll call you from a skiff when I get to whatever."

Only once the bombings in Yemen occurred did Goldberg — as he tells it — realize "this is almost certainly a real Signal group and not some sort of deceptive disinformation campaign." He's being careful, it seems, to protect himself. Did he do something wrong by failing immediately to drop out of the chat? He would like the timeline for judging his behavior to begin at the point when he knew "almost certainly" that the conversation was what it appeared to be:

And so then I had to begin to make a serious decision...

Key word: then. And: begin.

... consulting with colleagues that ultimately led me to remove myself from the Signal group later that day....

What was said in these conversations?

How did they analyze the legal problems and journalism ethics? What we know is that Goldberg signed out of the Signal group.

... knowing that the group administrator and Signal and the members, I believe, of a group as well, are notified that you have left the group.

That is, to withdraw he would have to expose himself as the eavesdropper he chose to be. Presumably, that problem was bandied about in those consultations with colleagues. During the time he was talking to colleagues, he was still in the group and he knew it wasn't a hoax. Now, to get out, he'd have to target himself. But, bottom line, he got out. 

I assumed at that point that Mike Waltz was gonna call and say, Hey, who, who is this? Or call and say, why'd you leave the group? And, and, and then I would say, you know, director Waltz or whatever, do you know, do you even know who this is? But nobody look the, I mean, here's the, the, the truth of it is nobody noticed when I was added and nobody noticed when I was left.

The truth is, you don't know what other people notice when they say nothing. 

The "Daily" interviewer invites Goldberg to reveal why he left the group. He says:

You know, I, I think people can make their own deductions here, but I can't get into for various reasons. The conversations I subsequently had with colleagues and others about my decision making, all I will say is that I, I removed myself from the group understanding the consequences of that....

He doesn't want to talk about it. And who knows the meaning of things not said?

ADDED, after listening to more of the podcast. The interviewer comes back to the material I've highlighted. She says:

I respect the fact that you can't go into the details, but I do want to ask you whether part of the reason why you left was that you were concerned you could get in trouble for it. Like were you worried at all that you had stayed in that chat too long? And, and not just you, but the people that you're talking to at the Atlantic that presumably you're getting advice from? 

Goldberg's answer shows that he needs to worry that he could be accused of a crime. He says:

I'm going to, your Honor, I'm gonna respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that I can't answer the question. I take the nation's laws very seriously, but I am not in a position to discuss decision making related to the type of material that I was seeing.

Then, Goldberg brings up something that shocks me into seeing why Trump hates Goldberg: "Four years ago, five years ago, I reported that Donald Trump referred to the World War I and World War II War dead as suckers and losers."

And then I had to wonder whether Goldberg was put on that Signal chat deliberately to entrap him into committing what would be characterized as a crime, and that's what I'm guessing he talked about with his colleagues that led him to withdraw from the chat. 

Of course, on the Trump side, they congealed very quickly around the story that it was a stupid mistake, but no harm, no foul. But isn't that what they would do if it were deliberate entrapment?

Another suspicion I developed listening to this podcast is that Goldberg is not the first journalist to be added to a chat like this and fed information, but other journalists have just written stories about the substance of what they heard. Look at that line: "Bob Woodward has spent an entire career trying to infiltrate groups like this." Well, maybe Bob Woodward is in groups like that. He just doesn't write articles about what happened to him. And maybe Goldberg knows that, but he chose to make the story about himself because he knows he's high on Trump's enemies list, and he and his colleagues/lawyers gamed it out and decided he needed to protect himself from criminal prosecution.

Why would Goldberg, of all journalists, be included in that chat?

Occam's razor says entrapment.

"How do I politely tell people I don’t like having anyone visit me in my home? My home is my safe haven."

"The energy of the outside world drains me, and I don’t want that feeling inside my home. This includes family members, friends, neighbors, church family and anyone else who might come knocking on my door. I have anxiety and some unresolved trauma I’m working through that contributes to this. I’m happy to meet in a public place or visit someone in their home if we are both comfortable with it. My family cannot understand why I’m like this. They think they have a right to my space simply because they are family. I don’t mind anyone thinking I’m weird, but how do I respond without feeling like I have to explain myself?"

An interesting point of view, articulated in the form of a letter to the entity known as "Dear Abby."

If you don't mind anyone thinking you're weird, just say what you feel. And if you don't want to feel that you have to explain yourself, why are you asking how to respond?

Where do people get the idea they can invite themselves into someone else's house?