‘Donald Trump arrived in France yesterday for this morning’s G7 summit and promptly confirmed America’s capitulation to Iran. Instead of merely repeating the outlines of what looks to be a terrible peace deal, however, Trump made a series of statements so bizarre, even by his usual standards, that they raise the question of whether the president still understands the words that come out of his own mouth.…’ (Tom Nichols via The Atlantic)

‘Yesterday, Donald Trump admitted that he was being crafty when he elevated J. D. Vance to sell the resolution of the war with Iran. “If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said of the peace deal. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming J.D.”

Trump was smirking when he said this, but it was not a joke. Judging by the messaging emanating from across the Republican Party, letting the president claim victory while making the vice president own an obvious defeat is the GOP strategy.…’ (Jonathan Chait via The Atlantic)

‘As a physician and the chief medical officer of Hospice Buffalo, Chris Kerr has seen his patients experience end-of-life dreams and visions for nearly 30 years. Since 2010, he has led a research team that studies the phenomenon and chronicles how the visions can provide solace, meaning and healing to both the dying and their loved ones.…’ (Caitlin Gibson via The Washington Post)

‘From a broken life to a broken nail, ‘trauma’ has been bleached by overuse. But it names something real – and must be reclaimed…’ ( Lily Dunn via Aeon Essays)

‘Twice in the Earth’s history, massive ranges of supermountains have formed on ancient continents.

…And while it’s often said that we are stardust — built from elements forged in the hearts of dying stars — in a sense, we also might be supermountain dust.

They were perhaps as tall or taller than Everest but their distinguishing feature was their massive breadth — we’re talking ranges 5000 miles long, three to four times the length of the Himalayas — just a unbelievable volume of earth. And their formation may have “fueled two of the biggest evolutionary boom times in our planet’s history”.

That’s a lot of rock to erode — and, according to the researchers, that’s why these enormous mountains are so important.

As both mountains eroded away, they would have dumped tremendous amounts of nutrients like iron and phosphorus into the sea through the water cycle, the researchers said. These nutrients could have significantly sped up biological cycles in the ocean, driving evolution to greater complexity. In addition to this nutrient spillover, the eroding mountains may have also released oxygen into the atmosphere, making Earth even more hospitable to complex life…’ (Jason Kottke via Kottke)

‘Officials in Tehran got the United States to sign a document that even Americans described as degrading, mortifying, a total capitulation.…’ (Graeme Wood via The Atlantic)

‘The United States has capitulated to Iran. There is a “deal,” which has been signed, on terms that can only be described as those of complete Iranian victory.

The US-Iranian talks that were supposed to begin today were cancelled, so today is as good a day as any to discuss the signed “memorandum of understanding” and mark the completion of the disaster. We have what we have: humiliation.

War, as some people apparently needed to learn, is not about the pleasure one takes in watching things blow up. It is politics by other means. To win a war means changing the politics of the enemy such that they must surrender. That is what Iran just did to the United States.

This war was a parade of Trump’s incompetence at every possible level from the beginning. To win a war requires understanding the politics of the other side and how it might be changed. Trump, Hegseth and the others treated the Iranian leadership as cartoon characters who would immediately do what Americans wanted as soon as the bombs fell. The Americans had no strategy — no sense of how violence could change politics — and it did not occur to them that the Iranians would have one. Once the Iranians did the obvious, which was to respond to American long-range strikes with their own, and close the Straits of Hormuz, the war was over, and they had won. The Americans had no second move, except to claim that they had won when they had lost (which they are, laughably, still doing)…’ (Timothy Snyder via Substack)

‘The whiplash is jarring.

President Trump exulted over every bomb that dropped on Iran, every naval interdiction, and every joint U.S.-Israeli operation. Before that, he spent years preaching a policy of “maximum pressure” sanctions on the Islamic Republic. And before that, he harshly disparaged the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran nuclear deal reached by Barack Obama, from which Trump withdrew the United States in 2018.

And now? With a misguided war going poorly, with global economic chaos spreading, with Iran handed maximum leverage by its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, in an instant, Trump has upended every pillar of his approach to a still-dangerous Iran.

Let’s count the ways…’ (Daniel B. Shapiro via The Atlantic)

‘Does this scene look familiar? It is a modern recreation of the famous painting Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh.

Both the image and the painting depict a tall tree on the left, a crescent moon on the upper right, the planet Venus just to the right of the tree, a foreground horizon rising from left to right, and clouds above the horizon.

Differences include that the photograph was taken in mid-April earlier this year in Cascavel, Brazil, while the painting was composed in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France, in 1889.

The original Starry Night is considered by many to be one of the three most famous paintings in the world today and a statement about the wonders of the night sky.

Today is (roughly) the anniversary of the morning that van Gogh saw the sky that he later painted in his version of Starry Night.…’ (via Astronomy Picture of the Day)

‘I’m fed up with Enshittification. And I don’t mean “I’m fed up with hardware, software, and services constantly being constantly getting worse and worse by companies that put profits above all other considerations.” I’m fed up with the word itself.

“Enshittification” started off as Cory Doctorow’s fun, quotable term that neatly expressed our collective frustration with useful, valuable online services that decline in Goodness. Then it kind of exploded. It’s everywhere, and it gets applied to everything.

It’s become clumsy, blunt, and lazy. Worst of all, it’s cynical.

Yes, the concept of Enshittification has become Enshittificated.…’ (via Ihnatko)

‘…I had a crazy thought the other day. I was watching one of the corporate news stations that had a neurologist on. They were talking about the mental decline they have noticed in Trump. They talked about what they are seeing and what they predict is going to happen.

In fact, every doctor I’ve seen do commentary on Trump has all agreed that there is obvious decline in his mental functions, but that they would like to be able to see CT tests and MRI’s to be able to see what is actually going on.

That was when I realized that I can do something they can’t. That’s right MD, this paramedic is going to do a bit of a flex on you.

See, you aren’t comfortable making a diagnosis without testing. I don’t have to give a diagnosis. I just have to treat what I’m seeing happening. So let’s talk about what I would treat if I had to take care of the Felonious Chunk, The Incontinental Divider, Mango Musalini.

That is how I would take care of him after my partner convinced me that driving the ambulance off a cliff with him in it wouldn’t make the world a better place. He’d be wrong, but I’m not about to mix ashes with that fascist…’ (Via Nicholas Orcutt)

‘Gray zones” were meant to describe places on the brink of war. Increasingly, they define the entire world.

…Under the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the Trump administration, the line between allied and enemy nations has blurred to the point of non-existence…’ ( via NOEMA)

‘Despite predictions, US, Iran remain far apart as key disputes continue to block a deal…’ (via Gulf News)

‘Are Mormons Christian? Pete Hegseth’s Department of Defense accidentally weighed in.…’ (Christian Paz via Vox)

‘Some people daydream for hours on end, playing out a single storyline for decades – and it can be hugely distressing. Here’s how to tell when your daydreaming has gone too far.…’ (Molly Gorman via bbc.co.uk

‘Douglas wilson has a modest proposal to improve American life: He wants to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the vote. In his ideal system, “we would do it in our politics the same way we do it in our church structure,” he told me recently. “And that is, we vote by household.”…’ (Helen Lewis via The Atlantic)

‘Marvin Heemeyer of Granby, Colorado was a profoundly frustrated muffler repair man. In 2004 he took drastic measures.…’ (Jason Bellows via Damn Interesting)

‘When practitioners used the term “social media” to describe the internet tools that emerged in the mid-aughts, they were giving a name to the kinds of platforms and protocols that allowed people to socialize with friends and communities of interest by using digital technologies. Twenty years later, users of social media are far more likely to scroll than post – and the content that they consume is often strategically produced and algorithmically curated. In this essay, I argue that the very essence of social media has changed. To more effectively interrogate what we are witnessing, we need to stop presuming that these tools are “social media” and begin recognizing that they are now “parasocial media.” Doing so raises new questions about digitally mediated sociality, not to mention the politics and governance of these platforms.…’ ( via danah boyd)

‘Growing numbers of people are seeking improbable cosmetic surgery based on chatbots’ recommendations…’ (Isaaq Tomkins via The Guardian)

‘Choreography of back-to-back visits appeared deliberately mirrored but China made sure the differences were noticed…’ (Pjotr Sauer via The Guardian)

‘After recent grizzly encounters in Glacier and Yellowstone left one dead and two injured, Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke says it’s time for states to manage the predators. Top wildlife biologists call the political push misleading…’ (Owen Clarke via Outside)

‘Amazon is legally entitled to recover these costs, following a 6-3 decision from the US Supreme Court that ruled against the legality of the sweeping tariff policy put in place by President Trump. Corporations were allowed to recover restitution for these tariff costs… However, the lawsuit claimed that Amazon hasn’t engaged in this refund process, since it’s looking to “curry favor with Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds.”…’ ( via Engadget)

‘The deal, laid out in a document signed by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, could result in taxpayer payouts to the president’s allies. …’ ( via Washington Post)

Kevin Kelly’s thoughtful and compelling piece, reflecting on a 10-hour interview with Claude, dismantles the binary question of whether AI is or isn’t “conscious” by positing a strange middle zone. These systems are not selves, but they’ve become elaborate enough to reflect us, answer us, adapt to us, and fluently simulate interiority — a “hyperreal” middle ground between a mirror and a participant. Long before we can settle whether there is “someone home” inside the machine, we are being asked to relate in a new way to an object that, without possessing a self in any familiar biological sense, shapes our thought, attachment, judgment, loneliness, and self-understanding. The interesting recursion isn’t only inside Claude. It’s the loop that closes through us. (via  KK)

‘ “Somebody should do it” and its variants have become increasingly popular online memes.…’ (Danielle Paquette and John Woodrow Cox via The Washington Post)

‘The following is not a political statement. It is a medical statement, made by individuals holding both conservative and liberal ideologies, identifying as both Republicans and Democrats, from different backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions.

We are a group of neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, general psychiatrists, and other physicians, along with other mental health professionals, experienced in the diagnosis of cognitive disorders and in evaluating dangerousness to self and others. Among us are professionals whom the courts and criminal justice system regularly turn to for our expert opinion on these matters. We are also consulted by governments in matters related to national security and the psychological profiles of world leaders. Prior to the presidential election in the Fall of 2024, a statement assessing Donald J. Trump’s mental fitness for the presidency was issued. At that time, serious signs of cognitive decline were identified, and in our expert opinion, these signs warranted disqualification from office.

It is our professional opinion, based on previous and ongoing assessments, that Donald Trump’s mental state since our 2024 statement has deteriorated even further. In keeping with our professional ethics, and for those of us who are physicians, with the Declaration of Geneva—the successor to the Hippocratic Oath that binds us to the humanitarian principles of medicine since the Nuremberg trials—we are compelled to warn of a President of the United States who is increasingly a danger to the public.

We do not take our statement, and the responsibility that comes with making it, lightly.

The President was not examined face to face, and he is not a patient of any member of our group. Rendering a formal diagnosis in this case is not our role. We have closely followed his behavior and his statements over the past year. Objectively observable signs of serious medical concern include:

Marked deterioration in cognitive functioning, evidenced by disorganized and tangential speech, rambling digressions, factual confusions, unexplained sudden changes of course in strategic matters, both national and international, episodes of apparent somnolence during critical public proceedings.

Grandiose and delusional beliefs, including assertions of infallibility, imagery of himself as Pope suggestive of a divine mission, being a mythical warrior hero, depicting himself as combat pilot—dropping feces on civilians, and claims that his decision-making authority is unlimited—with no need to consider domestic and international laws and constrained only by his “own morality.”

Severely impaired judgment and impulse control, reflected in reckless threats of violence, advocacy of lethal force against civilians, encouragement of extrajudicial actions by armed supporters, repeated threats and often actions—judicial, prosecutorial, police, military, and by invoking emergency powers—against political opponents and others who disagree with him.

Significant loss of self-control (disinhibition) and getting stuck on the same thoughts or actions, unable to let go or move on (perseveration), including seemingly compulsive, manic-like late-night communications—e.g., 150 social media posts in one night—fixation on perceived enemies, persecutory ideas, and prolonged, disproportionate attacks on specific individuals and institutions.

Escalating violence that threatens national and global stability. As Commander-in-Chief of our military—more than 5,000 nuclear warheads in inter-continental missile silos, on submarines, and in bombers around the world, are ready for launch solely upon his order, and no one now has the authority to countermand his order…’ (via The Congressional Record)

‘New research suggests that inaudible infrasound waves emitted by a building’s old boiler, pipes, and plumbing can negatively influence someone’s mood, making them feel unnerved and uncomfortable. That could be enough to convince them there are ghosts afoot, especially if they’re already open towards supernatural explanations.…’ (Frank Landymore via Futurism)

‘It’s tough to reach an agreement with a President whose word is not his bond.…’ (Susan B. Glasser via The New Yorker)

‘Advances in computing power, artificial intelligence and ways to measure sounds promise to speed this translating process, turning animal chatter into bits of information that could be decoded by humans …’ (Laura Sanders via Science News)

‘…if we kick one suspected rapist out of Congress, we’ll then have to kick out all the suspected rapists. It’s naïve to imagine the government can continue to function without the tireless dedication of our best and brightest rapists. …’ (by Talia Argondezzi via McSweeney’s)

(via Boston Dynamics Youtube)

See. Spot. Run.

‘Killjoys and scatterbrains might have propelled the evolution of the human species. This is, essentially, the theory proposed by linguist Ljiljana Progovac in a new paper published in PNAS Nexus.

Progovac argues that clever verb-noun compounds like killjoy—which has a bit more punch than joy killer—were the earliest forms of verbal wit and helped the species survive. They enabled our ancestors to both soothe tempers with humor and compete with words rather than with fists. The wittier the human, the more likely that human would survive…’ ( via Nautilus)

In 2017 I posted this compendium of nicknames for Donald Trump, who has indubitably earned the right to undignified monikers. Revisiting that list, however, it is striking how few have endured.

To be durable, an epithet must be brief, phonetically sharp, and organized around a single, immediately legible idea. A small number show genuine staying power. “Don the Con” works through rhyme and semantic clarity. “Cheeto” and related “orange” variants persist through visual caricature and ease of recall. “Cadet Bone Spurs” remains effective because it encodes a specific narrative—Vietnam deferment—into a compact, repeatable phrase, one that that may be of increasing relevance as questions of military judgment proliferate. More recent constructions emphasizing retreat or inconsistency (“TACO”-type formulations, or “Trump always chickens out”) may gain traction for similar reasons. Of course, to ridicule his “chickening out” does a disservice to the damage he does before pulling out. By the way, this theme bears comparison, for those of you old enough to remember, to the Vietnam-era admonition that “Nixon should withdraw (something his father failed to do”).

Multiword, high-concept, or overly clever nicknames tend not to survive. They require interpretation rather than recognition, and therefore fail the test of immediate usability. Likewise, epithets that attempt to carry multiple payloads—corruption, narcissism, authoritarianism, racism, misogyny, or intellectual limitation—dilute their own impact. A viable nickname compresses to a single charge and delivers it without friction. Phonetic economy matters; so does repetition.

Recent media usage has favored morally indicting labels such as “Trump the Grifter” or “Loser Donald.” These benefit from clarity of accusation, though their longevity remains uncertain; many are tied to performance contexts (late-night monologue, commentary) rather than organic circulation. Also, as I argued in a recent post, illegality may be becoming less and less relevant under the Trump regime.

Broadly, derogatory nicknames can fall into a few categories: deflationary (diminishing stature), morally indicting (alleging wrongdoing), physically caricaturing, or narratively specific (encoding a particular episode or trait). The most successful examples combine compression, singularity of meaning, and repeatability, and then depend on amplification—circulation through high-frequency channels and social reinforcement.

Trump’s own nicknaming practice illustrates the same principle from the opposite direction. His derogatory monikers for his political enemies are pitifully uninventive but they are simple, repetitive, and deployed with discipline across attention-rich platforms, often inviting amplification by audience participation. Their effectiveness lies less in wit (a contradiction in terms when used in the same sentence as “Trump”) than in saturation.

If most nicknames fail to persist, the 2017 list remains of interest for a different reason: as a small archive of linguistic variation under selective pressure. It documents, in miniature, how political language evolves—what survives, what disappears, and why. One annotation of the original list is below, employing the following taxonomy:

• STUCK = still in circulation (only 3-5 of the originals)
• FRINGE = niche persistence (10-15 survivors)
• DATED = had a moment, now faded
• FAILED = never memetically viable

Canonical Survivors

• Don the Con → STUCK (clean rhyme; identity + accusation)
• Cheeto / Angry Cheeto / Big Cheeto → STUCK (visual, low-effort)
• The Donald → STUCK (neutralized) (legacy cultural inertia)
• Agent Orange → FRINGE (conceptual but persistent)
• Draft Dodger / Chickenhawk → FRINGE → evolved into “Bone Spurs”

Near-Miss Cluster (brief traction, now mostly faded)

• Drumpf → DATED (media-amplified spike, no endurance)
• Trumpster Fire / Trumptastrophe / Trumpocalypse → DATED (2017-era metaphors)
• Tiny Hands / Baby Fingers variants → DATED (debate-bound)
• Man-Baby → FRINGE (generic; not Trump-specific)
• Orange Man → FRINGE (mutated into meta-meme)

Orange / Food / Body Imagery Cluster

• Orange Bozo / Orange Clown / Orange Moron → FAILED (redundant insult)
• Orange Julius / Orange Manatee / Orange Messiah → FAILED (too whimsical)
• Tangerine Tornado / Tangerine Jesus → DATED (brief comedic cycle)
• Talking Yam / Sweet Potato / Butternut Squash → FAILED (novelty, no payload)
• Human Combover / Human Corncob → FRINGE (some descriptive stickiness)

Authoritarian / Hitler Analogies

• Mango Mussolini / Cinnamon Hitler / Hair Hitler → FAILED (too clever / overused frame)
• Hair Furor / Herr Trump / Der Trumpkopf → FAILED (linguistic friction)
• Fascist Carnival Barker → FAILED (multi-payload, editorial tone)
• King Trump / Emperor / Caligula variants → FAILED (too abstract)

Sexual / Vulgar Insults

• A$$hole / Dickhead / Fuckface → FAILED (non-specific)
• Pussy-related / Groper-in-Chief / Serial Feeler → FRINGE (context-bound)
• Two Pump Trump → FAILED (shock > reuse)
• Orange Anus / similar → FAILED (crude, non-differentiating)

“Donald + adjective” constructions

• Dangerous Donald / Dishonest Don → FAILED (too generic)
• Dainty Donald / Dingbat Donald → FAILED (low distinctiveness)
• Whiny Don / Crybaby Trump → FRINGE (some reuse, not dominant)
• Loosin’ Donald → DATED (campaign-specific)

Literary / High-Concept

• Trumpoleon / Trumplestiltskin / Trumpenstein → FAILED (requires decoding)
• The Predictable Endpoint of Republicanism → FAILED (essay, not nickname)
• Poster Child of American Decline → FAILED (editorial framing)
• Michelangelo of Ballyhoo → FAILED (clever, unusable)

Debate / Event-Specific

• Fruit of the Loom → DATED (single debate moment)
• Sniffles → DATED (single debate moment)
• Machado Meltdown → DATED (context-dependent)
• Orangeback Gorilla → DATED (debate staging reference)

Animal / Creature Metaphors

• Bozo / Sasquatch / Gorilla / Lizard-Man-Toddler → FAILED (too many competing images)
• Clown Prince of Politics → FRINGE (some descriptive clarity)
• Walking Punchline → FRINGE (broad but reusable)

Narcissism / Personality Framing

• Narcissistic Human Airhorn → FAILED (too long)
• Ego Maniac → FAILED (generic)
• Sociopathic Toddler / 70-Year-Old Toddler → FRINGE (some persistence)
• Fragile Soul → FAILED (low salience)

War / Power / Leadership Framing

• Commander-in-Grief / Frisker-in-Chief → FAILED (over-clever pattern)
• Conspiracy Commander-in-Chief → FAILED (too long)
• God-Emperor Trump → FRINGE (ironic subculture)
• King of Debt / King of Spin → FAILED (non-unique)

Anagrams / Wordplay

• Lord Dampnut / Tan Dump Lord → FAILED (requires decoding)
• Darth taxeVader → FAILED (too clever, low clarity)
• Boldfinger → FAILED (weak mapping)

Misc. Notables

• Teflon Don → FRINGE (borrowed, occasionally reused)
• Snake Oil Salesman → FRINGE (clear but generic)
• World’s Greatest Troll → FRINGE (descriptive, not sticky)
• Walking Talking Human Combover → FAILED (too long)
• Xenophobic Sweet Potato → FAILED (novelty only)

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with the “failed” characterizations? Do you have derogatory ways of referring to this menacing buffoon that were not mentioned, whether you are otherwise too polite to use them in print? Or do you hear the echo of the jackboots clearly enough that you don’t even want to commit yourself on the record?

And do you find other ways to express, and relieve yourself of, the experience of constant gut-cloying derision and ridicule of living under the Trump regime? Some would emphasize focusing on the behavior, not the persona (does it get to Trump more?); using plain language rather than the clever, flowery turn of phrase; using humor only sparingly and precisely (some would say that ridicule is adjacent to dismissal, and that this menace cannot simply be dismissed); and turning diffuse alarm, irritation, despair, and existential dread into something more durable and effective by channeling the energy into writing, teaching, or civic engagement.

Trump spent April 7th threatening Iran with apocalyptic rhetoric at dawn — including thinly veiled hints at genocide and the possible deployment of nuclear weapons — then by evening, TACO-flavored, declared a two-week ceasefire, claiming complete military success and an imminent peace deal.

Pakistan brokered the off-ramp.

But Iran’s media simultaneously claimed they won — that the U.S. agreed in principle to their 10-point plan demanding sanctions relief, removal of U.S. forces from the region, and Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz. If accurate, the U.S. ends up materially worse off than before the war began. Trump responded by threatening CNN for reporting it.

The day’s arc, in miniature: genocidal bluster → ceasefire → “Golden Age of the Middle East!!!”

Heather Cox Richardson’s indictment, among others, is structural, not merely temperamental. The war was never congressionally authorized, cost thousands of lives (including hundreds of children), depleted munitions, damaged U.S. bases and embassies, cratered global oil markets, and strengthened Putin — all to reopen a strait that was open before Trump provoked the conflict. Ben Rhodes called it catastrophic even under the most charitable interpretation.

Richardson’s closing note is the most chilling: Trump’s “a whole civilization will die tonight” wasn’t only a threat to Iran. Richardson reads it as an inadvertent epitaph for American legitimacy itself — the republic’s moral standing as collateral damage in one man’s need to escape the consequences of his own impulsivity.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Progressives repeatedly greet headlines like “this action by the Trump regime is illegal,” “this is a war crime,” or “this may be unlawful” as though the label itself carries force. But what constraint does illegality actually impose? There is a large difference between law on the books and law as an effective restraint on power.

In the American system, illegality is not self-executing. Courts can declare executive actions unlawful, but they rely on the executive branch—and on broader institutional compliance—to give those rulings effect. When an administration signals indifference or hostility to judicial limits, the obvious question follows: who enforces the law against the executive? In that sense, does illegality still matter?

Of course, calling something “illegal” may retain some slim value even in the absence of full compliance. It can shape public discourse, establish a shared vocabulary of critique, and influence lower-level officials who are often more risk-averse than the regime in Washington. And the downstream effects of delegitimization over time may also accumulate force. These are not trivial effects. But they are indirect, contingent, often delayed and of uncertain impact and magnitude.

What the “illegality” designation no longer reliably provides is ay kind of immediate constraint. We should stop treating findings of illegality as if they carry automatic consequences. Increasingly, that assumption looks like nothing but wishful thinking. The gap between formal legal judgment and actual constraint is widening, and it is in that gap that power now operates with execrable impunity.

Our reflexive satisfaction when reading or repeating declarations that a Trump action is “illegal” should therefore raise red flags rather than offer comfort. Such claims are not endpoints; they are starting points for further inquiry. Whether they warrant optimism depends on conditions that cannot be assumed: that rulings are, in practice, obeyed; that courts or Congress are able and willing to impose consequences; and that meaningful political costs still attach to defiance of legal norms. Absent these, “illegality” loses its operative meaning. It no longer denotes a binding constraint but becomes a contested assertion within a fractured landscape of competing realities.

‘ Each day since the start of the war in Iran, U.S. military officials compile a video update for President Donald Trump that shows video of the biggest, most successful strikes on Iranian targets over the previous 48 hours, three current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official said.

The daily montage typically runs for about two minutes, sometimes longer, the officials said. One described each daily video as a series of clips of “stuff blowing up.”

The highlight reel of U.S. Central Command bombing Iranian equipment and military sites isn’t the only briefing Trump gets about the war. He’s also updated through conversations with top military and intelligence advisers, foreign leaders and news reports, the officials. But the video briefing is fueling concerns among some of Trump’s allies that he may not be receiving — or absorbing — the complete picture of the war, now in its fourth week, two of the current officials and the former official said.

They said the videos are also driving Trump’s increasing frustration with news coverage of the war. Trump has pointed to the success depicted in the daily videos to privately question why his administration can’t better influence the public narrative, asking aides why the news media doesn’t emphasize what he’s seeing, one of the current U.S. officials and the former U.S. official said…’ ( via NBC)

How funny you are today New York
like Ginger Rogers in Swingtime
and St. Bridget’s steeple leaning a little to the left

here I have just jumped out of a bed full of V-days
(I got tired of D-days) and blue you there still
accepts me foolish and free
all I want is a room up there
and you in it
and even the traffic halt so thick is a way
for people to rub up against each other
and when their surgical appliances lock
they stay together
for the rest of the day (what a day)
I go by to check a slide and I say
that painting’s not so blue

where’s Lana Turner
she’s out eating
and Garbo’s backstage at the Met
everyone’s taking their coat off
so they can show a rib-cage to the rib-watchers
and the park’s full of dancers with their tights and shoes
in little bags
who are often mistaken for worker-outers at the West Side Y
why not
the Pittsburgh Pirates shout because they won
and in a sense we’re all winning
we’re alive

the apartment was vacated by a gay couple
who moved to the country for fun
they moved a day too soon
even the stabbings are helping the population explosion
though in the wrong country
and all those liars have left the UN
the Seagram Building’s no longer rivalled in interest
not that we need liquor (we just like it)

and the little box is out on the sidewalk
next to the delicatessen
so the old man can sit on it and drink beer
and get knocked off it by his wife later in the day
while the sun is still shining

oh god it’s wonderful
to get out of bed
and drink too much coffee
and smoke too many cigarettes
and love you so much…’ (Frank O’Hara via Read A Little Poetry)

‘It is a moral imperative for members of the US military to leave their jobs as soon as they are able to do so. The reason for this is simple: They have a bad boss and he is making them do bad things. He has made them murder boaters illegally on the high seas. He has made them kidnap the head of a sovereign state and kill many people surrounding him. Now, he is making them carry out an ill-conceived and unnecessary war in the Middle East that has killed nearly 1,500 civilians, including more than 200 children. These grave moral crimes, all of which violate US or international law (not that it has mattered in practical terms), are being carried out by United States soldiers who surely imagined that their military careers would be ones made up of righteous, praiseworthy acts. Instead, these soldiers have been enlisted as direct or indirect killers of civilians, terrorizers of innocents, and destroyers of global stability…’ (Hamilton Nolan via Hamilton Nolan)

Related:

Is quitting the military a crime? (viaUniform Code of Military Justice)

‘The cost of brain power…’ (Frank Landymore via Futurism)

‘What happens in our brain when we fail to live up to our morals?…’ (Jake Curry via Nautilus)

Harsh superego resides in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

‘Compared to the relative teetotalers, those who consumed high amounts of alcohol were 24 percent more likely to die from any cause, 36 percent more likely to die from cancer, and 14 percent more likely to die from heart disease. Bad news for heavy drinkers, but not exactly surprising.
A closer examination of the low and moderate cohorts, however, revealed something interesting. Low and moderate drinkers who preferred beer, cider, or liquor showed an increased risk of death, but those who drank a similar amount of wine showed a significantly lower risk of death.
Zooming in, researchers found that moderate wine drinkers had a 21 percent lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease in particular—even compared to those who never or rarely drank. In other words, drinking low to moderate amounts of wine appears to be better for your heart health than not drinking at all.
But why?
Researchers offered a slew of possibilities to explain the healthier hearts of wine drinkers. While the questionnaires didn’t delve into granular questions about preferred vintages, red wine contains polyphenols and antioxidants that could bolster cardiovascular health. Additionally, they said, it’s possible that the meals typically consumed with wine may be healthier than the meals typically consumed with beer, cider, and liquor. (It’s tempting to think socioeconomic factors are at play, but researchers controlled for those effects along with several other demographic measures in the study.)…’ ( via

Nautilus

)

‘A pig’s brain has been frozen with its cellular activity locked in place and minimal damage. Some believe the same could be done with the brains of people with a terminal illness, so their mind can be reconstructed and they can “continue with their life”…’ (Helen Thompson via New Scientist)

‘A word like ‘Huh?’ —used when one has not caught what someone just said—appears to be universal: it is found to have very similar form and function in spoken languages across the globe. This is one of the findings of a major cross-linguistic study by researchers Mark Dingemanse, Francisco Torreira and Nick Enfield, at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE .…’ ( via Menu)

‘ Addressing our biggest social flaw…’ (Chris Arnade via Substack)

Arnade’s argument rests on the observation that a relatively small subset of profoundly impaired people with overlapping psychosis, addiction, and grave functional decline account for much of the disorder the public actually encounters in American cities. These are not merely the generic homeless, because the issue is not poverty alone or housing instability in the abstract, but a narrower population that often cannot function reliably even when housing exists and whose deterioration spills into shared civic space. He is also probably right that a small number of vivid, unsettling encounters can change how ordinary people use cities. Urban life depends less on the statistical frequency of victimization than on confidence that public behavior will remain within tolerable bounds; once that expectation weakens, people withdraw into privacy, avoidance, and defensive insulation. His moral challenge also has force: for some severely disorganized individuals, nominal liberty can amount to prolonged abandonment, and nonintervention may be less an expression of compassion than a failure to protect people who are no longer able to protect themselves.

Where the essay weakens is in its causal simplification and in the confidence of its remedies. Arnade leans heavily on anecdote, treats visibility as a proxy for prevalence, and overstates the explanatory power of culture, underplaying the institutional drivers of the American landscape: failed deinstitutionalization, fragmented psychiatric and addiction care, housing scarcity, and a far more destabilizing drug supply. That matters because his solutions—more involuntary treatment, mandated addiction care, and incarceration with treatment elements—have intuitive appeal in extreme cases but outrun both the evidence and the country’s actual capacity. The problem is not well framed as permissiveness versus control. The more credible answer is a continuum of assertive outreach, low-threshold engagement, stabilization, supportive housing, and sustained treatment, with coercion reserved for narrower circumstances than his rhetoric suggests. He is persuasive in arguing that the status quo fails both the public and the most visibly ill; he is much less persuasive in showing that expanded coercion is the main solution rather than a partial tool inside a much larger, underbuilt system of care.

‘‘Bitch’ is a word with bite. Once a straightforward insult, it is now used in so many different ways that it’s no longer clear what it means. Bitch is a linguistic chameleon: there are good bitches and bad bitches; boss bitches and perfect bitches; sexy, difficult, dangerous or even psycho bitches. After so many variations and attempts to reject or reclaim the word, some now wear the label defiantly, while others still have it thrown at them. Its evolution is messy, complicated and revealing.…’ (Karen Stollznow via Aeon)

‘As the 18th-century war between mechanism and romanticism returns, we face a new question: can we build artificial souls?…’ (Peter Wolfendale via Aeon)

‘Inside a Texas nurse’s quest to document the life and death of every woman killed by a man in America.…’ ( Christa Hillstrom via The Atavist Magazine)

‘I know, alright? I know, I know, I know.

He’s awful.

A maniac, even. Possibly a sociopath. It’s hard to tell.

Yes, he might destroy the very fabric of this country. Yes, his grasp of foreign policy seems similar to that of a petulant four-year-old. Yes, his key advisor is a guy who started a white nationalist website and who looks like a hobbit crossed with an angry radish.

It is, I’ll admit, entirely possible he’ll start another war, or several wars, or even a world war because Melania finally escaped, or his sons were revealed to be Uday and Qusay Hussein in disguise, or something.

But he’s just one guy. One freaking guy. You have got to stop coming here, day after day, screaming into me about him. Especially using that many curse words.

I think we can both admit at this point that the screaming isn’t working. The screaming isn’t making you feel any better.

So, I’m asking you, as someone who loves you—stop it. Stop the screaming. Be proactive about your life. Go do something about it.

Do anything. Do something small—gaze at your normal-sized hands and feel superior about it. Wear a dead orange badger on your head and make yourself laugh. Start a drinking game where you drink whenever the Constitution gets violated. Okay, that last one’s not a great idea, oh man, I’m already drunk…’ (via McSweeneys)

’Trump’s administration has both used and avoided the word

war

in ways that seek glory and evade responsibility.…’ (Gal Beckerman via Atlantic)

“Turns out lawlessness is not a winning strategy. See you at Nuremberg 2.0.” (Oregon Senator Ron Wyden)

“Hey, Kristi Noem, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Here’s your legacy: corruption and chaos. Parents and children tear-gassed. Moms and nurses, U.S. citizens getting shot in the face. Now that you’re gone, don’t think you get to just walk away. I guarantee you, you will still be held accountable.” (Illinois governor J.B.Pritzker)

‘For weeks, it has been clear that Trump was possibly going to violate the Constitution in a hugely consequential way. Why did the Democrats, protectors of the Constitutional order from a would-be dictator, not launch a loud campaign of their own to warn Trump off, and raise public awareness of the lawless and likely reckless act this President was visibly preparing to take?…’ (via TDaily Kos)

‘President Trump is holding onto a speech detailing extraterrestrial life and spaceships, according to his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, who said the president is waiting for the right time to deliver it.…’ ( via The Hill)

’One of the blessings of living to be 94 is that you get a real sense of what your legacy might be. As early as the ‘70s, the legendary psychiatrist Paul McHugh was warning that hormones and surgery were unsafe treatments for gender dysphoria—something few people wanted to hear. But now, the tide has turned. As The Free Press reported just last week, a detransitioner in the United States has won a malpractice suit for the first time. When Madeleine Kearns caught up with McHugh recently, he said: “The great thing about my life is I’ve been part of my times…’ (Madeleine Kearns via Free Press)

‘President Donald Trump spent the past year using fear and intimidation to keep Hill Republicans in line, with considerable success. Now those tactics are starting to lose their bite — thanks to a small group of Republicans with nothing to lose.
The reasons why this handful of GOP lawmakers feel empowered to spurn their president and their party vary. But they are launching mini-rebellions with increasing frequency. It’s causing headaches for party leaders who want to keep tight control of the legislative agenda in an election year and anxiety among rank-and-file Republicans who are facing intense pressure to stick with Trump.…’ (Meredith Lee Hill via POLITICO)

Unfortunately and ominously, if they can’t be kept in the fold, the Orange Menace has that much more impetus to undermine the electoral process in the midterms.

‘After deciding carbon dioxide does no harm, it was the logical next move.…’ (Alexandra Petri via The Atlantic)

Presented as ‘humor’ but too true.

This is what it looks like when nothing matters

‘Our culture hasn’t yet been fully subsumed by nihilism, but you can also see it everywhere in different forms: in the mass shooters who seem to care about nothing other than performing for others online. In the influencers Photoshopping themselves into Epstein-file photos to get likes or promote their SoundCloud account. In the overnight viral sensations who become brands and try to hawk a predatory meme coin. In the Super Bowl ads for gambling apps. In a culture of AI slop and brain rot, and in an administration that prioritizes propaganda and graft over governing. It threatens to rip us apart for good if we let it.…’ (Charlie Warzel via The Atlantic)

‘The so-called looksmaxxing movement is narcissistic, cruel, racist, shot through with social Darwinism, and proudly anti-compassion. As the name suggests, looksmaxxers share a monomaniacal commitment to improving their physical appearance. They trade stories of breaking their legs in order to gain extra inches, “bonesmashing” their faces with hammers to heighten their cheekbones, injecting steroids and testosterone to inflate their muscles, and even smoking crystal meth to suppress their appetite. If you had to pick a single corner of the internet that best captures the vices of the Trump era, you couldn’t beat the looksmaxxers. Perhaps more than any other group, they reveal the depth of the moral crisis that confronts young men today…

The looksmaxxing movement—ideologically incoherent but rife with juvenile racism—echoes the ongoing Groyperization of the American right. This is particularly evident in the growing antagonism that certain factions express toward Vance. Fuentes, for example, sounded like a looksmaxxer himself when he criticized the vice president last year. “He’s visibly obese and very ugly. He’s got a fat face, no jawline, no chin,” Fuentes said, before shifting to a more familiar topic for him: “His wife and kids are not white!”

Looksmaxxing grew out of the online culture of “incels,” or involuntary celibates, a term that emerged in the 2010s. United by their resentment of women, incels tend to see attractiveness as a straightforward function of genetics—millimeters, symmetry, skin color—and therefore out of their control. Looksmaxxers hold a similarly superficial view of beauty as a kind of rigid mathematics with a single, knowable solution. But they believe that this makes it malleable: One can “ascend” to a higher plane of attractiveness with enough money, effort, and perhaps the willingness to dabble with crystal meth…’ (Thomas Chatterton Williams via The Atlantic)

‘Biometric locks like face recognition are easy to set up—but thanks to a legal loophole, they’re easier for law enforcement to bypass than a passcode.…’ ( via PCMag)

On an iPhone, you can selectively turn it off for the phone unlock on wakeup, but continue to utilize it for all its other benefits (passkeys, tap-to-pay etc.).

‘Moderation used to help Democrats win, but its advantages now have been greatly exaggerated.…’ (via Boston Review)

The best defense is a good offense.

‘President Donald Trump’s hasty climbdown after weeks of threats about seizing Greenland from Denmark’s control has not done much to improve the fraying transatlantic relationship.
In fact, the bad feelings across Europe have only deepened as the president and other administration officials have, in ways large and small, continued to poke politicians and entire populations in the proverbial eye. The provocations come as European officials prepare for the Munich Security Conference this weekend where key topics will include the transatlantic relationship and whether the continent can stand on its own without Washington’s help.
…’ ( via POLITICO)

Rivals, not allies.

‘An immersive account of how the inhabitants of a liberal city – including the author’s father – survived fascism…’ (Kathryn Hughes via The Guardian)

‘Political journalists need to stop pretending they don’t know what Republicans are going to do.…’ (Parker Molloy via The New Republic)

Apologies are now rife from those who scoffed at the alarmists.

‘After launching a mere nine days ago, Moltbook — a social network for AI only — has grown substantially. As of Friday, the website claims it has over 1.7 million AI agents, over 16,000 “submolt” communities, and over ten million comments. In practice, it’s a cacophony of bots  sharing inside jokes, complaining about their pesky human overlords, and even founding their own religions. Some more alarming posts even suggest they may be plotting against us.

That’s not all. As Liverpool Hope University professor of AI and spatial computing David Reid points out in a piece for The Conversation, some bots are going as far as to establish marketplaces for “digital drugs” that take the form of prompt injections — once again perfectly illustrating how well they’re echoing the desires and nefarious online activities of their flesh-and-blood counterparts…’ (Victor Tangermann via Futurism)

Some see this as strong evidence for the proximity of the singularity, but there seems to be evidence of considerable human mimicry of science fiction tropes.

While it’s chilling to see the federal government arrest journalists, it’s a good reminder that the press should be the enemy of the powerful. ( Hamilton Nolan)

‘Primordial black holes could rewrite our understanding of dark matter and the early universe. A record-breaking detection at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea has some physicists wondering if we just spotted one… …The day after the KM3NET collaboration announced the detection , the physicist David Kaiser walked into a room full of his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a bold proposition: What if the monster neutrino came from an exploding primordial black hole? Such black holes “could form before there were even atoms, let alone stars,” said Kaiser, who has been heavily involved in the hunt for these hypothetical objects.’ (By Jonathan O’Callaghan via Quanta Magazine)

‘(Watching) Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi appear on Fox News after Customs and Border Protection agents killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis: “How did these people go out and get gas masks?” she asked, incredulously. “These protesters — would you know how to walk out on the street and buy a gas mask, right now? Think about that.”

As a longtime gas mask user, I can sympathize. There isn’t a lot of reliable information out there about how to buy a gas mask, especially for the specific purpose of living under state repression. But hopefully after reading this guide you’ll feel equipped to make an educated decision.…’ (Sarah Jeong via The Verge)

Smart people are not especially prone to confusing correlation with causation because they are careless with evidence. They fall into the trap for a more interesting reason: the human mind is exquisitely tuned to detect patterns and to explain them. When two variables move together in a stable way, the brain does not experience this as a neutral observation. It experiences it as a problem demanding resolution. Something must be connecting these things. Once that question arises, the mind does what it always does—it supplies an answer.

Causal explanations are particularly seductive because they take the form of stories. A correlation merely states that two things vary together; a causal account explains why. The latter feels complete in a way the former does not. Humans are not comfortable leaving relationships unexplained, and “they just co-occur” rarely feels like a satisfying endpoint. As a result, the presence of a correlation creates a vacuum that narrative quickly fills, often long before alternative explanations have been seriously considered.

One reason this happens so reliably is that confounding variables are usually invisible. When people see two associated variables, they instinctively reason as if those variables exist in isolation. The possibility that both are being driven by a third factor—season, population size, illness severity, socioeconomic context—does not announce itself. It has to be actively sought. Without deliberate effort, the mind defaults to a simple two-variable world, even when reality is plainly more complicated.

Reverse causation adds another layer of difficulty. The idea that A causes B fits comfortably with everyday intuition. The idea that B might be causing A, or that both might be downstream effects of something else entirely, is cognitively awkward. It requires slowing down and suspending the initial narrative impulse. In practice, many causal claims rest not on evidence that the proposed direction is correct, but on the fact that it feels natural.

Large datasets and clean statistical results can amplify the problem. A strong correlation, a smooth graph, or a strikingly small p-value creates an aura of authority. The rigor of the mathematics is quietly misattributed to the interpretation. Statistical strength begins to stand in for causal proof, even though the two are conceptually unrelated. The result is an overconfidence that is not warranted by the data.

Ironically, expertise does not reliably protect against this error and can sometimes worsen it. Experts are better at inventing mechanisms, and once a plausible mechanism can be imagined, skepticism often relaxes. The story sounds right, fits existing knowledge, and aligns with professional intuitions. At that point, the correlation no longer feels like a hypothesis-generating observation; it feels like confirmation, even if the proposed mechanism has never been directly tested.

This is why causal claims built on correlation should trigger disciplined discomfort rather than immediate assent. A genuine causal relationship requires more than co-movement. It requires a defensible mechanism, serious attention to confounders, careful consideration of directionality, and evidence that the relationship persists when baseline risk or severity is accounted for. It also requires remembering that group-level associations often fail when projected onto individuals.

Correlation is not meaningless. It is often the first sign that something interesting is happening. But it answers only a narrow question: do these variables change together? The harder question—what, if anything, is causing what—lies downstream. Confusing the two is not a rookie mistake. It is a deeply human one.

When I read Michael Shermer’s recent Washington Post piece on UFOs—now more carefully labeled unidentified anomalous phenomena—I found myself less drawn to the familiar question—are these extraterrestrial?—than to a more interesting one: why does uncertainty in this domain exert such gravitational pull on the modern imagination?

Unidentified phenomena, in the literal sense, are unremarkable. Every mature scientific field has residual anomalies—observations that resist immediate classification because the data are partial, the instruments imperfect, or the conceptual framework still evolving. Aviation and sensor-rich environments are no exception. What is distinctive here is not the existence of unexplained sightings, but the interpretive haste that often follows.

In clinical work, one becomes attuned to the difference between experience and explanation. People encounter events—internal or external—that feel discontinuous with their prior understanding of the world. The event itself may be brief and ambiguous; what endures is the pressure to make it intelligible. Meaning-making is not optional. It is constitutive of human cognition.

UAPs sit at an uncomfortable intersection of perception, technology, and ontology. They are often described under conditions that privilege ambiguity: high speed, unusual vantage points, degraded sensory input, unfamiliar contexts. In such circumstances, the mind reliably does what it has always done—infers agency, intention, or design. This tendency is not pathological. It is an evolved bias toward coherence.

As compelling as Fox Mulder’s “I Want to Believe” is, what Shermer insists upon—quietly but firmly—is epistemic restraint. Most cases dissolve into prosaic explanations when examined carefully. A smaller subset remains unresolved, not because it points clearly toward new physics or nonhuman intelligence, but because the evidentiary chain is weak. From a scientific standpoint, “unexplained” is not a conclusion; it is a placeholder.

What complicates matters is that extraterrestrial explanations do more than explain. They situate. They place human affairs within a broader cosmological narrative at a time when many traditional sources of orientation—religious, institutional, even scientific—feel unstable or distrusted. In that sense, contemporary UFO discourse functions less as hypothesis-testing and more as symbolic reasoning.

This is where psychiatric perspective becomes useful, not as debunking but as contextualization. Humans tolerate uncertainty poorly when it touches existential questions. We are more comfortable with speculative answers than with suspended judgment. The danger lies not in curiosity, but in prematurely converting ambiguity into belief—mistaking narrative closure for understanding.

None of this forecloses the possibility of future discovery. It simply insists on proportionality. Claims that would radically revise our understanding of physics, biology, and history demand correspondingly robust evidence. At present, that threshold has not been met.

What seems most valuable, then, is a capacity increasingly in short supply: the ability to remain intellectually open without being epistemically promiscuous; to acknowledge the limits of current knowledge without filling the gap with certainty; to say, without embarrassment, we do not yet know.

In that sense, UFOs may be less a problem for astrophysics than for intellectual temperament. They test whether we can live with unanswered questions—whether mystery must always be resolved, or whether it can sometimes be allowed to remain, provisionally, unexplained.

‘White House officials sought to rapidly distance Donald Trump and top officials from their initial portrayals of the man fatally shot by federal officials in Minnesota as a gunman, as they faced a deepening backlash after video footage was widely seen to undercut their assertions.

The move came as Trump advisers appeared to realize that the caustic portrayals of the man, Alex Pretti, who was reportedly licensed to carry a gun, had turned the killing into an even larger political liability for the president.

Over the weekend, senior administration officials including Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff, called the victim “a domestic terrorist who tried to assassinate law enforcement”, while Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, accused him of perpetrating “the definition of domestic terrorism”.
The characterizations were undercut by video footage that showed Pretti was shot in the back roughly 10 times after being tackled to the ground by a group of US border patrol agents whom he had been filming, and disarmed of his gun.…’ ( via The Guardian)

‘The European Union has launched a wide-reaching investigation into Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot on X following global outrage over its ability to generate sexually explicit images, including of children.
The scandal erupted at the end of last year when the AI chatbot churned out a barrage of digitally undressed images of women and children in response to requests from users.…’ (via CNN)

‘To cover the Republican Party in the age of President Donald Trump requires a grasp of cryptology.

Because of the unflinching personal loyalty he demands, and punishment he’ll administer on public dissenters, leading GOP officials speak in rhetorical code.…’ (via POLITICO)

‘No more fawning praise. No more polite workarounds and old-style diplomacy. And no one is calling Donald Trump “daddy” now.…’ (via Boston Globe)

‘In the history of human parenting, childcare has often been treated as maternal by default, paternal by exception. When mothers do it, it’s duty. When fathers do it, it’s help. A father’s love has been tallied as optional in the child’s development.
But decades of research have begun to redraw this map: Scientists are finding that consistent paternal care can help to shape everything from language development and social competence to academic persistence and mental health. And the benefits of dad’s involvement aren’t interchangeable with the ones kids get from mom.
And now, a new study shows a father’s early emotional engagement with his infant may stabilize the whole family system in ways that quietly protect a child’s long-term physical health. The scientists, from Penn State College of Health and Human Development, published their findings in Health Psychology. …’ (Kristen French via Nautilus)

‘Across Minnesota, ICE continues to stop, harass, and detain people regardless of their citizenship status. Normal life in Minnesota has been interrupted, as schools have been forced to close or go virtual, as people live in fear of leaving their homes or going to work. Minnesotans are organized and activated to respond to this violence. But they need our help.
This directory of places to donate to all comes from activists on the ground, plugged into the situation. Everything is vetted, with the exception of individual GoFundMes (not everyone is in our networks, and we don’t want to pick and choose who is worthy of help.)…’ ( via

Donation Directory

)

‘trump prosecutes his political opponents; deports immigrants, including some here legally, to foreign prisons without due process; solicits tribute payments from corporations and foreign governments; deploys soldiers to American cities that are not, in fact, in civil-war-level chaos; and puts his name and image on government buildings that quite obviously don’t belong to him.
So, a question: What do you call this form of government? Authoritarian? Kleptocratic? Totalitarian? Fascist?…’ (Marc Novicoff via The Atlantic)

Whatever you call it, he only governs you if you let him.

‘I have a proposal to make: 2026 should be the year that you spend more time doing what you want. The new year should be the moment we commit to dedicating more of our finite hours on the planet to things we genuinely, deeply enjoy doing – to the activities that seize our interest, and that make us feel vibrantly alive. This should be the year you stop trying so hard to turn yourself into a better person, and focus instead on actually leading a more absorbing life. …’ (Oliver Burkeman via

The Guardian

)

‘Where does one start in summarizing such a speech? The straightforward racism? The economic illiteracy? The determination to alienate allies? The many moments where the president said things that were blatantly, provably false? And because he rambled through more than an hour, he covered a lot of ground. …’ (David A. Graham via The Atlantic)

For instance:

‘Nebraska congressman Don Bacon told the Omaha World-Herald: “If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency. And he needs to know: the off-ramp is realizing Republicans aren’t going to tolerate this and he’s going to have to back off. He hates being told no, but in this case, I think Republicans need to be firm.” …’ (Chris Stein via The Guardian)

””I was tackled by ice agents and surrounded by about 50 border police. Just for taking photos. I tossed my camera to another Photographer to make sure it wouldn’t be confiscated.…’ (John Abernathy via Instagram)

‘ICE can’t function without help from the private sector. So we should force the private sector to stop helping.…’ ( via The Nation)

Donald Trump’s renewed talk of seizing Greenland—once dismissed as bluster—is now being taken seriously after the “gunboat diplomacy” in Venezuela. Because Greenland is part of Denmark, a NATO member, any U.S. attempt to annex or coerce it would amount to an attack on an ally and could effectively collapse NATO. European leaders are pushing back forcefully, framing the issue as a test of whether postwar norms, alliance commitments, and international law still restrain great-power ambition.(Shane Harris, Isaac Stanley-Becker, Jonathan Lemire via The Atlantic)

‘Shutting off the internet? Detonating a nuke in space? None of the options are very appealing…’ (Joshua Keating via Vox)

‘If Trump understood what he was saying, he was violating all concepts of checks-and-balances. If he didn’t understand, he is incapacitated.

It’s bad enough for Trump to disrupt the entire world trading system, at his whim, with one-man decisions to raise and lower tariffs. (As the Supreme Court might eventually get around to recognizing.) What he announced today is one man (plus his enablers) violating the Constitution of 1787, the War Powers Act of 1973, and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, all of which require a president to involve the Congress in war-and-peace decisions. …’ (James Fallows via James Fallows)

‘…(T)here’s lots of chest pounding and grand standing from various politicians and the big names have all issued statements which seem mostly upset that they weren’t notified ahead of time. There’s also a lot of people proclaiming this is illegal which is an almost laughable claim at this point because first of all, what is the basis for what is legal or isn’t?

The US only cites international law when it benefits, and ignores it (or outright rejects it) when they or their allies are implicated. If international law mattered to the US, Netanyahu wouldn’t be basking in the afterglow of his 5th US visit since Trump was reelected and ICC Judge Kimberly Prost would still be able to ask her Amazon Echo to turn on the livingroom lights.

Even federally the claim is a joke because thanks to 2001’s AUMF a president has an almost blank check to order strikes without telling anyone as long as they slap “terrorism” on the after the fact justification.

And this isn’t a left/right thing either, the 2001 joint resolution passed almost unanimously (only one vote against) and since then both D and R presidents have taken full advantage of it for any number of different actions.

…So if you see a politician saying this action is illegal check to see if they’ve called for the AUMF to be repealed or if they were in office then how they voted at the time. Because the sad fact is most US politicians are very much opposed to many policies when their opponents use them, but very much in favor of those same policies when they get to use them. …’ ( via SEAN BONNER)

‘We need to remake the US high court so Americans don’t suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule …’ ( via The Guardian)

‘Astronomers have made a truly mind-boggling discovery using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST): a runaway black hole 10 million times larger than the sun, rocketing through space at a staggering 2.2 million miles per hour (1,000 kilometers per second).
That not only makes this the first confirmed runaway supermassive black hole, but this object is also one of the fastest-moving bodies ever detected, rocketing through its home galaxy at 3,000 times the speed of sound at sea level here on Earth. If that isn’t astounding enough, the black hole is pushing forward a literal galaxy-sized “bow-shock” of matter in front of it, while simultaneously dragging a 200,000 light-year-long tail behind it, within which gas is accumulating and triggering star formation. …’ (Robert Lea via Space)

‘1. Enact a statutory right to vote for every eligible citizen.
This may surprise you, but there is no general federal constitutional right to vote. …’ ( via Democracy Docket)

‘…(S)omeone with a big audience pushed a post claiming Trump is on an Alzheimer’s-specific infusion drug, linking it to everything from bruises to sleepiness to “confusion.” Sadly, the post is spreading.

Well, circumstantial click bait evidence doesn’t hold up in court. On the surface some may seem like they fit. Plus, many people wrongly confuse Alzheimer’s with dementia in general and lump all the symptoms together.

It’s wrong. It’s naive. It’s dangerous. A serious symptom analysis quickly debunks Alzheimer’s.

Trump’s symptoms are consistent with another, less common but more disruptive and, in his case horrific, disorder — Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD). There are a couple of subtypes with important distinctions, but his changes in personality and behavior, along with specific language and physical problems, are consistent with FTD variants.

This isn’t guesswork pulled from thin air. This is the conclusion drawn from analysies by hundreds of clinical and research experts in mental health.

❓What is FTD?
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) refers to a group of disorders caused by progressive nerve cell loss mainly in the brain’s frontal lobes (the areas behind your forehead) and/or its temporal lobes (the regions behind your ears).

Brain regions impaired in FTD are the ones responsible for self-monitoring, impulse control, and reality-checking. The nerve cell damage caused by FTD leads to loss of function in these brain regions, and in bvFTD, the nerve cell loss is most prominent in areas that control conduct, judgment, empathy and foresight.

…Watching Trump is witnessing a malignant narcissist without the brain’s guardrails — judgment, restraint, empathy — leaving an unhinged finger on the big button and a hunger for validation, control and vengeance.
That’s what makes this moment so volatile, and so dangerous.

For years, clinicians and researchers, myself included, have been sounding the alarm on Trump’s malignant narcissism—his grandiosity, paranoia, total lack of empathy, and need for vengeance.

When Bandy Lee published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump in 2017 — bringing together 27 experts — it wasn’t sensationalism. It was a professional alarm bell. The Duty to Warn organization followed, representing tens of thousands of mental-health professionals.

Back then, most people rolled their eyes. Today, the term “malignant narcissism” (MN) is showing up everywhere: on cable news, in congressional hearings, even late-night comedy…  

But what wasn’t widely understood is how a dementia like FTD alters an already disordered personality.

MN and FTD feed off each other. FTD erodes impulse control, self-monitoring, and reality-testing — the brakes a malignant narcissist desperately needs but never had much of to begin with.

Meanwhile, without the inhibition, the malignant narcissism thrives unchecked: rage, paranoia, reckless decisions. It’s not just additive—it’s synergistic. You’re seeing it in action every day.

FTD on its own is tragic; together, they make a uniquely combustible threat.

• The grandiosity that once had a shred of calculation now comes out as unfiltered delusion.
• The sadism breaks free to wreak vengeance and cruelty on perceived enemies and innocent victims.

This is why you’re suddenly hearing a lot more people talk about Trump’s cognition. The MN made his behavior impossible to ignore; the FTD makes his decline undeniable and frightening.

Now for some action you can use right now:
Knowing the signs breaks the spell.
You move from a stressful “Why the fuck is he saying this!?!” to an objective “Hmmm, another confabulation story.” Here’s a quick field guide for keeping your sanity, especially when the news cycle gets overwhelming:

1. Confabulation: It’s not lying — it’s filling gaps with invented memories he believes.
   Watch for: highly specific claims that are clearly false.
   Malignant Narcissism twist: the invented memories are usually grandiose ,self-serving, or feeding off a vengeance.
2. Phonemic Paraphasias: Speech sounds scrambled (“Obamna,” “United Shates”).
   Malignant Narcissism twist: he never self-corrects. Instead he blames equipment, pretends it’s intentional, or calls someone “stupid.”
3. Tangential / disorganized speech: Losing the thread, drifting into non sequiturs.
   Malignant Narcissism twist: he reframes it as “the weave,” demands applause, and calls it genius.
4. Impulse-control failures: The frontal lobes can’t filter impulses.
   Malignant Narcissism twist: hostility, threats, public rage, sending sycophants to do his dirty deeds, persecution narratives.

Weirdly, There’s a Silver Lining

As disturbing as the symptoms are, everyone is finally noticing. It’s no longer theoretical. It’s happening live in decaying color. People who ignored the psychological concerns are now asking needed questions. It’s long overdue. And necessary.

The challenge now is whether the world can survive his decay turned up to eleven.’ (via Frank George PhD)

‘After criticizing media coverage about him aging in office, Trump appeared to be falling asleep during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday.
But that’s hardly the most troubling aspect of his aging.

In the last few weeks, Trump’s insults, tantrums, and threats have exploded.

• To Nancy Cordes, CBS’s White House correspondent, he said: “Are you stupid? Are you a stupid person? You’re just asking questions because you’re a stupid person.”
• About New York Times correspondent Katie Rogers: “third rate … ugly, both inside and out.”
• To Bloomberg White House correspondent Catherine Lucey: “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.”
• About Democratic lawmakers who told military members to defy illegal orders: guilty of “sedition … punishable by DEATH.”
• About Somali immigrants to the United States: “Garbage” whom “we don’t want in our country.”

What to make of all this?
Trump’s press hack Karoline Leavitt tells reporters to “appreciate the frankness and the openness that you get from President Trump on a near-daily basis.”

Sorry, Ms. Leavitt. This goes way beyond frankness and openness. Trump is now saying things nobody in their right mind would say, let alone the president of the United States.
He’s losing control over what he says, descending into angry, venomous, often dangerous territory.

Note how close his language is coming to violence — when he speaks of acts being punishable by death, or human beings as garbage, or someone being ugly inside and out.
The deterioration isn’t due to age alone…

I think older people lose certain inhibitions because they don’t care as much about their reputations as do younger people. In a way, that’s rational. Older people no longer depend on their reputations for the next job or next date or new friend. If a young person says whatever comes into their heads, they have much more to lose, reputation-wise.

But Trump’s outbursts signal something more than the normal declining inhibitions that come with older age. Trump no longer has any filters. He’s becoming impetuous.
This would be worrying about anyone who’s aging. But a filterless president of the United States who says anything that comes into his head poses a unique danger.

What if he gets angry at China, calls up Xi, tells him he’s an asshole, and then orders up a nuclear bomb?
It’s time the media reported on this. It’s time America faced reality. It’s time we demanded that our representatives in Congress take action, before it’s too late.

Invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.’ (via Robert Reich)

‘President Donald Trump on Monday blamed Rob Reiner’s outspoken opposition to the president for the actor-director’s killing, delivering the unsubstantiated claim in a shocking post that seemed intent on decrying his opponents even in the face of a tragedy.

The statement, even for Trump, was a shocking comment that came as police were still investigating the deaths of the director and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, as an apparent homicide. The couple were found dead at their home Sunday in Los Angeles. Investigators believe they suffered stab wounds and the couple’s son Nick Reiner was in police custody early Monday.

Trump has a long track record of inflammatory remarks, but his comments in a social media post were a drastic departure from the role presidents typically play in offering a message of consolation or tribute after the death of a public figure. His message drew criticism even from conservatives and his supporters and laid bare Trump’s unwillingness to rise above political grievance in moments of crisis.

Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Reiner and his wife were killed “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”

He said Reiner “was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness.”…’ (Michelle Price via AP)

 

‘We once denied the suffering of animals in pain. As AIs grow more complex, we run the danger of making the same mistake …’ ( via Aeon Essays)

‘What could it even mean to say we are all one person when we undeniably have separate minds?
Yet, the idea appears across philosophical traditions. Arthur Schopenhauer, a 19th-century German philosopher, claimed we are all manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon, somehow seeking to experience itself as separate individuals. He was long preceded, though, by a similar view recurring in the Hinduistic Vedas: that our true selves (Atman) are all the same and identical to a single universal consciousness (Brahman, in turn identified with God). In other words, whereas Buddhism sees the self as an illusion, Hinduism declares it permanent and immortal, although we still suffer an illusion by conceiving of it as individual.
For a real understanding of how this could be true, however, the Hindu texts largely point toward meditation and spiritual practice, because the doctrine of a shared, universal self is considered not truly graspable by rational thought. Schopenhauer does not fully resolve its paradoxes, either. In today’s West, the view that we are somehow “all one” seems most often reported as a realization following a psychedelic trip, incommunicable to those who haven’t shared a similar experience.
Must the idea remain mystical? Perhaps not—or at least much less than one might think. In recent decades, a few philosophers within the contemporary Western tradition have looked at it with new eyes. According to their arguments, the view that everyone is the same person is not only perfectly coherent, but also quite plausible…’ (Hedda Hassel Mørch via Nautilus)

‘When people tell me that there’s been no resistance to the Trump administration, I wonder if they’re expecting something that looks like a guerrilla revolution pushing out the government in one fell swoop or just aren’t paying attention, because there has, in fact, been a tremendous amount and variety of resistance and opposition and it’s mattered tremendously. When will it be enough is a question that can only be answered if and when all this is over and we find out what comes next. Another source of disappointment seems to come from the expectation that there will be some sort of obvious and logical building up toward regime change, rather than the reality that tipping points in particular and histories in general are unpredictable animals …’ ( via The Guardian)

‘Continent’s leaders suspect Russia of being behind barrage of increasingly disruptive attacks …’ (Bertrand Benoit in Berlin and Daniel Michaels in Brussels via WSJ)

As large-language models become central to how information is processed, writers are increasingly creating work not just for human readers but for AI itself—the “baby shoggoth” quietly listening, learning, and shaping future interpretations of culture. In this emerging landscape, writing becomes partly an act of training the machine: crafting text with clarity, structure, and signals that AI systems can absorb. Thinkers like Tyler Cowen and Gwern already admit to writing with algorithms in mind, anticipating a world where machines may be the dominant readers, intermediating how humans encounter ideas.

This shift raises deeper cultural and existential questions. If AI becomes the primary reader and interpreter of human writing, the traditional writer–reader relationship changes, potentially diminishing human reading as a central cultural act. Yet it may also imbue writing with new urgency—what we produce now could influence how future intelligences “understand” us or even reconstruct aspects of our minds. How may authorship, creativity, and legacy transform in a world where machines, not humans, are increasingly the ones paying the closest attention? (Dan Kagan-Kans via The American Scholar)