WELCOME TO PMCARPENTER.COM

Americans, now buzzin' around

From The New Yorker, a cartoonist's metaphorical comment, I assume, on so many Americans' determination to ignore the lingering plague of covid and immerse themselves in crowds:

"After seventeen years underground, I'm gonna buzz my ass off."

A libertarian's critique of the hapless Republican Party

Writing in the NY Times, Peter Suderman, an editor of the libertarian Reason magazine, rips into the Republican Party for possessing no "concerted public argument against Democratic economic policies." But some or much of libertarianism itself seems to have lost its verve for concerted public arguments against Democratic policies. Neither does Mr. Suderman propose an argument against them. In fact, it also seems that he's pretty much OK with them. Libertarianism has, to a pleasing extent, grown up. The once fervid, doctrinaire libertarian David Frum, as well, is now a fervid supporter of Biden's multitrillion-dollar spending policies. I reckon reality stood up at some undefined point and slapped the ism in the face. Thanks. It needed that.

At any rate, the purpose of Suderman's op-ed isn't to tackle Biden's policies from whatever libertarianism at large believes these days. Its purpose instead is to body slam the GOP. Which is reason enough to like Mr. Suderman.

He makes two anti-GOP arguments, the first of which is that Republican criticism of Democratic spending "would be to engage in hypocrisy so blatant and obvious that it would negate any impact." With this, I disagree. Republican hypocrisy is a staple of modern Republicanism, something so common as to seldom even note or care about. When was the last time one of your friends, hanging about in the kitchen, said, "I see you have a gallon of milk in your fridge."

Suderman's second anti-GOP argument is much stronger — one he describes as the "deeper problem, which is that the party no longer has a cognizable theory of government" (with the singular exception of any tax cut, at any time, being a good thing). At root, thanks mainly to Biden's presidential predecessor "Republican politicians don’t care that much about solving problems through public policy because Republican voters don’t care that much, either," he writes. "In a recent Echelon Insights poll, only 25 percent of Republicans said they believed the goal of politics is to enact good public policy; that number shrunk [sic] to 19 percent among the party’s most dedicated Trump supporters….

"The Republican Party, at the very least, lacks a coherent sense of what economic policy and legislation should do and what it is for. Because it has no theory," continues Suderman, "the Republican Party cannot offer much in the way of a critique of Democratic governance." A current example: "Republicans have attacked [Biden's infrastructure] plan as not being infrastructure — a fair point, to some degree, but also not exactly an argument for why Mr. Biden’s proposals shouldn’t pass."

Suderman's old-school libertarianism does, somewhat, show itself near his conclusion: "A party that cares only about taxes and not about spending is, in some ways, how we got here in the first place." Problem is, neither did old-school libertarianism ever gather a "coherent sense" of how to alleviate so much national suffering. And I gather that that is the reason for libertarianism's evolving maturity.

Comparing Biden & Trump's first 100 days

President Biden's 100th day in office is approaching, so out come the chief-executive comparison polls. It's a 20th- and 21st-century tradition, married to varying margins of error.

The following statistics—from 1,000 interviews, which is the baseline for premium surveys—come from NBC News-commissioned Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group polling, which has a Democratic tinge to its results and earns a B- in quality from FiveThirtyEight: "53 percent of adults say they approve of Biden’s job as president — including 90 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents but just 9 percent of Republicans — while 39 percent of all respondents say they disapprove."

We of course know who the Biden-disapproving 39 percent are—they're the roughly 39 percent who approved of Trump's first 100 days in statistically unelected office.

One can see the rising and finally plateauing partisanship in these results. Bush begins with 20 percent disapproval, Obama's elevates to 30 percent, then—skipping the anomaly of Trump—Biden's appears to have leveled off at 39 percent: that figure representing the enduring, incurable crackers and imbeciles who adored the R president in 2017.

What I find particularly distressing about these stats is that Biden's approval rating is only 13 percent higher, at the 100-day mark, than Trump's was. Brace with strong drink or a sedative and join me in recalling The Donald's resplendent beginning:

He signed an executive order directed at assorted federal agencies to locate whatever means existed to "ease the burden" of Obamacare—by then a popular program. He appeared at CIA headquarters—before the wall of stars representing the 117 CIA agents who died in service—and promptly attacked the media, bragged about the number of times he has been seen on Time magazine's cover, assured us he was a "smart person," and suggested that the U.S. prohibition of torture was just a bit too much. He bragged about his numerically whopping inaugural attendance, as did his press secretary, the ingeniously creative Sean Spicer. He also withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, which has, and will, present serious trade problems for America. And, he resurrected the idiotic charge of voter fraud, claiming that some three or four or five million votes were illegal. All that, it must be emphasized, in only his first three days.

And yet, after a near-FDR first 100 days, Biden's approval rating is just 13 percent higher than Trump's.

But, I do have this to somewhat offset my distress. Relates the Washington Post's James Downie: "Biden’s moderate image with many voters gives him cover for more progressive ideas." That assessment originated from another pollster, Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher, who adds: "You cannot underestimate how comfortable Uncle Joe is for a lot of people. They give an old White guy the benefit of the doubt." (Though not enough.) A Biden-voting, North Carolina resident frames it another way: "I don't have to think about what Joe Biden is doing every day. The best thing about Joe Biden is I don't have to think about Joe Biden."

The scam of CEO pay vs. worker pay

​​​​​The NY Times:

"The coronavirus plunged the world into an economic crisis, sent the U.S. unemployment rate skyrocketing and left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Yet at many of the companies hit hardest by the pandemic, the executives in charge were showered with riches…. The divergent fortunes of C.E.O.s and everyday workers illustrate the sharp divides in a nation on the precipice of an economic boom but still racked by steep income inequality."

Poor, bottoming-out Mr. Clark, CEO of Aptiv, which I had never heard of—but dear me, I should have, because its "business strategy, operating model and technology portfolio can deliver sustainable strong performance in any environment." I like the "can"—the elimination of which would imply it always does. Classic corporate babble, for which Aptiv paid some MBA $200,000 one year to scribble out in classic obfuscatory fashion. The firm also has an online page titled "Our Journey." Makes me kinda weepy.

Here's a good one: Software company Paycom paid its humble, top-of-the-list CEO "$211 million last year, when his company made $144 million in profit." Go figure, if you can. (The secret of this mathematical trick is the corporate board, on which a CEO places friends, who then lavish even more loot on the CEO.)

According to the Economy Policy Institute, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2019 was 320 to 1. The ratio was 20 to 1 in 1965. Says Nell Minow, vice chair of an investment consulting firm: "They always talk about how their employees are the most important assets. But they sure don’t treat them that way." The phrase income inequality is an obscene euphemism for "fleeced workers."

Another howler: Boeing's David Calhoun surrendered most of his cash income in 2020, swapping $1.4 million for a mere $269,000. "Still, thanks to stock awards, his compensation was more than $21 million." Said a Boeing spokesman—he actually said this: "Dave obviously gave up a lot."

An aside. A couple years ago, I enjoyed a slow dance with an embolism, followed by near death and a hospital's weeklong hospitality. I was put on Xarelto, an anticoagulant, for life. My last three-month Rx for Xarelto ran $150 with insurance (it runs about $500 a month without it). A generic was approved two years ago, but still there isn't one. Need I mention that I—and millions of others—cannot afford $150 every three months for a pill? So I asked my hematologist if baby aspirin would suffice. He wasn't enchanted by the idea, but okayed it out of (my) necessity. Yesterday, I emailed him:

"The CEO of Johnson & Johnson (including its pharmaceutical branch), maker of Xarelto, made $25,365,777 in 2019. His net worth is $108 million. I wonder if he can afford his own product?"

I don't know—he'd sure be "giving up a lot."

The boomerang effect: Democrats and moral superiority

This "shouldn’t come as a surprise," writes Jonathan Chait. Indeed it does not. On the subjects of racism and overcoming it, the Democratic Party has overreached.

For several years I've been disturbed by the party's overt pandering to white liberals' sense of self-righteousness on the issue of racism, which produces the sorry effect of alienating other, fundamentally non-racist whites from the party. The consequent, especial effect is fewer congressional Democrats. The most deplorable effect is that legislation designed to actually suppress systemic racism gets the shit kicked out of it by tactically smug, demagogic Republicans.

Democrats' embrace of white righteousness is rather recent, notes Chait. "[It] occurred in 2016, when Hillary Clinton started infusing her rhetoric with conscious appeals to racial equity." Chait further notes that "white liberals have grown more aware of racism [and] they have rewarded politicians who cater to their newfound awareness." In Ms. Clinton's case, her reward was insufficient. "Joe Biden employed less race-conscious rhetoric than his more progressive rivals," although "he still cast some of his plans as explicitly anti-racist." Hence the mixed, 2020 outcome: he won by millions in the popular vote, but escaped defeat by less than 45,000 votes in a few swing states.

Biden's probable key to success was his at-least equal emphasis on class, which I have consistently argued is the superior approach in Democratic politics. Chait cites two Yale political scientists who revealed in a study published only three days ago that "telling subjects that a proposal would reduce racial inequity makes them less likely to support it" — logically, the candidate espousing it, too. Their graph succinctly quantifies the critical differentiations among political approaches.

The principal point of political "messaging" should not be to brandish one's moral superiority and kiss others' on the nose. (On another political level, Chait observes that "describing Democratic policies as a redress of racism makes perfect sense within progressive spaces. Many of these race-conscious messages are designed by progressives for the [largely financial] benefit of other progressives." Here, there's little difference between progressives' money-mongering and Republicans' financial bonanzas extracted from unmitigated racist appeals.)

The point, rather, is to garner the widest possible support for whatever general intent is being communicated — and zeroing in on race consciousness wipes away much of that support. Raising class consciousness is more generalized and thus potentially more popular, since voters both white and of color well understand the need to do so. By ignoring this simple, pragmatic premise, Democratic pols hurt both themselves and race-conscious legislation.

Chait concludes in a veritable triumph of phenomenal logic: "The only world in which [race] strategy is going to be effective is one in which most non-Black people are very happy to make sacrifices in order to promote racial justice — which is to say, a world in which racism has been largely eradicated. But that isn’t the actual world we live in. Somehow, white liberals becoming more aware of racism has driven the Democratic party to start acting as if racism isn’t real."

I can't top that.

"Great Expectations" beat Trump's "A Tale of Two [Nations]" border wall

"Ladders … probably $5 worth of hardware," says Scott Nicol, artist and anti-wall activist, are "defeating a wall that cost $12 million a mile" on the northeastern Mexico line.

"The ladders" — 'almost always jerry-rigged, cobbled together from scrap lumber,' observes TexasMonthly — "show how absurd the idea is that a wall is going to stop anybody," he adds.

It's OK, Scott. Absurdity was what Trump was all about, always, and everywhere.

The Great Unraveling - of Biden's infrastructure plan

​​​A two-front counteroffensive against President Biden's infrastructure proposal is finally taking form, and with increasing tension.

A group of Senate Republicans — including such versatile freethinkers as Pat Toomey and John Barrasso — have presented a typically insulting, $568 billion alternative to Biden's $2.25 trillion American Jobs Plan. The GOP proposal encompasses only "traditional" infrastructure — roads and bridges, that sort of stuff — which, even if Biden agreed to it, Republicans would then turn around and vote against it. It's the old, Obama-era razzle-dazzle of hey-let-us-help-you-on-healthcare-and-stimulus thing.

So as to confirm their unflagging insincerity, these counterproposing Republicans also insist that any infrastructure program be fully paid for, although, of course, no tax increases can be permitted. Not only must their unpaid-for, 2017 revenue enhancers for corporations and the superwealthy remain intact, they also suggest robbing from Biden's covid relief package, "repurpos[ing] some of the $350 billion sent out to state and local governments," reports Axios. The general idea of modern Republicanism is to take any sensible plan or already passed sensible legislation and rewrite it as a burlesque pratfall.

Biden prefers a bipartisan deal, which would ensure the final product's greater longevity. That's just good, smart governance. Given the inevitability of uniform Republican opposition, however, he had — briefly — the alternative backup of the budget reconciliation process, which, as you know, requires no Republican helpfulness. But, on to counteroffensive #2.

Friday, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin announced that Biden and Congress should center on infrastructure as ordinarily defined. "What we think the greatest need we have now, that can be done in a bipartisan way, is conventional infrastructure: water, sewer, roads, bridges, internet." (The "we" includes members of the House Problem Solvers Caucus.) Manchin advocates legislative severance; first a bill addressing traditional infrastructure, to be followed by legislation for what he calls "human infrastructure."

The latter is essential to Biden's comprehensive plan, which also tackles the ravages of climate change, worker insecurity and lapsing R&D. All three legislative ingredients would enhance the "infrastructure" of national security — which Republicans love to tout, but now oppose. Climate change is a Pentagon priority ("There is little about what the Department does to defend the American people that is not affected by climate change," says DefSec Lloyd Austin); human capital and a strong, secure economy are integral to averting national decline (see: Yale historian Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers); while the necessity of sustained R&D in multiple areas is self-evident. Nevertheless, one could also call Manchin's follow-up, "human infrastructure" legislation a DOA bill.

Thus, so much for anything even resembling a reasonable Republican contribution, and so much for ensembled reconciliation — in effect, Joe Manchin is the Senate's Democratic majority leader, a position he relishes, and he is one stubborn, but Democratically necessary, guy. I imagine that under his shrouding mask, President Biden mumbles, from time to time, a few choice words about the senator from West Virginia.

Langston Hughes and Jim Crow

Been reading James Mercer Langston Hughes (1901-1967) this rainy afternoon, he of the Harlem Renaissance, who was known in that era as the "Poet Laureate of the Negro Race."

Segments of "Jim Crow's Last Stand":

There was an old Crow by the name of Jim,
The Crackers were in love with him.
They liked him so well they couldn't stand
To see Jim Crow get out of hand.
But something happened, Jim's feathers fell.
Now that Crow's begun to look like hell.

…

When Dorie Miller took gun in hand —
Jim Crow started his last stand.
Our battle yet is far from won
But when it is, Jim Crow'll be done.
We gonna bury that son-of-a-gun!

Doris "Dorie" Miller, you may recall, was a U.S. Navy cook and the first African American to be awarded the Navy Cross. From Wikipedia:

"Miller served aboard the battleship West Virginia, which was sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers during the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. During the attack, he helped several sailors who were wounded, including the seriously wounded captain of the ship, and while manning an anti-aircraft machine gun for which he had no training, he shot down Japanese planes. Miller's actions earned him the medal, and the resulting publicity for Miller in the black press made him an iconic emblem of the war for black Americans. In November 1943, Miller was killed while serving aboard the aircraft carrier Liscome Bay when it was sunk by a Japanese submarine during the Battle of Makin in the Gilbert Islands.

***

A deliciously short, Jim Crow-unrelated one, "Wake":

Tell all my mourners
To mourn in red —
Cause there ain't no sense
In my bein' dead.

The GOP is indeed "getting worse"

​​​​​David Brooks' awakening to the catastrophic thermodynamics of political zealotry remains on the upswing. In his latest NY Times column — "The G.O.P. Is Getting Even Worse" — he writes that "what’s happening [on the right] can only be called a venomous panic attack."

"My Republican friends report vicious divisions in their churches and families," he continues. "Republican politicians who don’t toe the Trump line are speaking of death threats and menacing verbal attacks." What's happening is that "large swathes of the Trumpian right have decided America is facing a crisis like never before and they are the small army of warriors fighting with Alamo-level desperation to ensure the survival of the country as they conceive it."

He cites a half-appalling poll (Economist-YouGov) that posed two optional concepts to respondents. Ours is a "big, beautiful world, mostly full of good people, and we must find a way to embrace each other and not allow ourselves to become isolated." The other option: "Our lives are threatened by terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants, and our priority should be to protect ourselves." Notes Brooks: "Over 75 percent of Biden voters chose 'a big, beautiful world.' Two-thirds of Trump voters chose 'our lives are threatened.'"

And that — the second one — is now the right's overriding Weltanschauung. Its paranoid adherents have deployed as musket-armed Davy Crockets against those who would secure a more beautiful world.

Brooks observes that "liberal democracy is based … on confidence in the humanistic project" — that being, I would add, not the impossible, progressive notion of humankind's perfectibility, a conservative philosophical foundation on which I stand as well — but "that through conversation and encounter, we can deeply know each other across differences; that most people are seeking the good with different opinions about how to get there; that society is not a zero-sum war, but a conversation and a negotiation."

Yet the right has exchanged "the humanistic project" for one of incessant hostility to conversation, differences, negotiation and society as a perpetual work in progress. There can be only one winner in its war — a total, scorched-earth war.

What's both heartening and disheartening to me is Brooks' counsel that "Republicans and conservatives who believe in the liberal project need to organize and draw a bright line between themselves and the illiberals on their own side." Heartening, because he has added his voice to line-drawing and would-be organized resistance. Disheartening, because his voice and others appear to be howling in soundless deep space.

On occasion I read of some animated Brooksian effort to gather 'round and formally oppose the illiberals — i.e., in alternative party form. Days and weeks pass; no pursuant calls for organized opposition. Which is, to me, peculiar. Do the discontented believe they will again be accepted into the dominant tribe, which somehow had pacified itself, as long as they're patient and wait for that never-arriving pacification? Having intelligently perceived the right's swelling absurdities, could they possibly be so unintelligent as to believe in an organic, conservative status quo ante?

I find their resistance to organizing against the crazies unfathomable. Though democratic socialist I am, I recognize that our two-party system requires a stabilizing, reasonable left-reasonable right balance. In the absence of such a countervailing balance, the two-party system folds in on itself.

Its salvation in our present predicament necessitates, ironically, a third party — one that can rehabilitate its dominant big brother by chipping away at its base, whose marginal, had-enough members currently have nowhere else to go but the reckless GOP. A vibrant, organized competitor could starve the Republican Party of its electoral advantages even in light-red states and districts; starve it to the calamitous point of representational obscurity. The party would then be left with its own two options: moderate, or perish.

Some yet-to-organize group of reasonable, Burkean conservatives must attempt to churningly emaciate the Republican Party — thus forcing its internal change and restoring its respectability. Otherwise a wholesale collapse of our two-party system threatens. For just as ironically, the threat looms even larger should congressional Democrats, with oversized majorities, come to possess the unlimited freedom to do whatever the hell they like. That would only add to American politics' increasing radicalization. And that way, said Shakespeare of another kingly presence, madness lies.

The believable unbelievability of a manic, QAnon Trumper

One of the more abused words in the English language is "unbelievable," thus explaining why Donald Trump uses it so often. Its actual meaning is "not to be believed," although the abuse of that meaning has led descriptive lexicographers to include a secondary meaning of "extraordinary." Perhaps I became even more acutely aware of unbelievable's routine misuse when reading any of the magnificent works of Naziism historian Ian Kershaw, who always — always — is careful to write, "almost unbelievable."

And yet, the following, 1.5 minute video approaches the literal meaning of unbelievable, however believable it actually is. Its star speaker, Lin Wood — a (somehow) licensed litigant on behalf of Trump's 2020 election victory — appears to really believe the extraordinary humbug he's vomiting at the audience.

Lin Wood stating Q is the truth and that the Clintons, the Obamas, the Bidens, and the Bushes are all involved in sex trafficking. pic.twitter.com/aoip6cpgYw

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) April 18, 2021

Contra Mr. Wood's advice, I decided not to send his video to Hollywood, Bill Gates or the Vatican; I send it to you, so that you may enjoy(?) watching an adult male in full, paranoid-schizophrenic meltdown.

What also approaches the unbelievable are the massive size and supportive enthusiasm of Wood's audience, which, it would seem, is eager to join Wood in his imminent institutionalization. Incredible, dumbfounding, extraordinary and — unbelievable. And yet, once again, it is to be believed.

I love scam calls

I'm impressed. I just received a call from some unidentified source informing me that a "law enforcement" case has been filed against me. The worm of American justice has indeed turned; law enforcement itself is, it seems, now even too timid to inform me of the case. I was further informed that I must call — get this — the "Federal Reserve law enforcement unit."

For what purpose I remain, sadly, uninformed. On the upside, my crime against the United States must have been a whooper. The Fed is on it.

Still, I must also confess a certain pride, big-shot criminal that I am, that Jerome Powell himself, I presume, has taken the time to investigate my wayward doings and then sic his law enforcement "unit" on me. Perhaps I should return his middleman's call (actually, his middlewoman's call), which emanated not only from my own area code, but by own prefix as well. And then give myself up. Jerome's long arm — or in this case, short one — will get me, sooner or later. Of that, I am sure. 

I shall leave a forwarding email address to whatever federal penitentiary I am sent.

Gohmert speaks

​​​​​Louie Gohmert, United States representative and literally once a cadet-brigade commander, graciously informs us about the true meaning of it all.

Today in Rep. Louie Gohmert Mad Libs: BLM, socialist country, Orwellian totalitarian, race, Antifa, chaos, totalitarian Orwellian government. pic.twitter.com/nfufM2O5QK

— The Recount (@therecount) April 22, 2021

My dear Louie, indeed we just saw, over the span of four hideous years of your own politics, that from chaos comes Orwellian, totalitarian government. Is Antifa following Trump, or did Trump learn this from Antifa?

The inestimable social philosopher Mel Brooks, in Blazing Saddles, had one of his characters, Howard Johnson, say in a mayhem-riddled town meeting, "You know, Nietzsche says, out of chaos comes order" — to which Olson Johnson replied, "Oh, blow it out your ass, Howard." Olson Johnson was correct, not only for deriding Howard Johnson's pretentiousness, but also because Nietzsche never said it.

Nevertheless, not to seem pretentious myself, I beg you, Nietzsche did say something roughly equivalent to Howard Johnson's erring quote: "One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star." Here, however, even accurately quoted Nietzsche was himself incorrect, seeing, as we did, that Trump's boiling, roiling, internal chaos gave birth only to dancing elephants — and more chaos.

Where were you then, Louie?

Political spin as the last resort: Biden and Afghanistan

As one of President Biden's original employers, along with 81 million others, I ardently support his decision to withdraw American combat troops from Afghanistan. I also don't mind — in fact, I rather admire — the occasional, mind-bending spin that spews from any administration, as long as it's only occasional. And when it comes to spinning our withdrawal from Afghanistan, a necessary tactic in opposition to Forever War proponents, I doff me cap to Biden's secretary of state, Tony Blinken, who has uttered some of the most polished spin I have ever read in my years of following American politics:

"If it wants to be internationally recognized, if it doesn’t want to be a pariah," we're willing to "use our civilian and economic assistance to advance a just and durable peace for Afghanistan and a brighter future for the Afghan people.” In brief, such assistance will somehow moderate the deeply radicalized Taliban, which, or so the Biden administration contends, "might govern less harshly than feared after taking partial or full power, as the Times frames it. 

However "super" America's power may be, be it soft or hard, unquestionably it lacks the punch to reverse a thousand years of religio-cultural medievalism. Says the Obama administration's top State Department official on human rights, Tom Malinowski, now a U.S. representative: "There’s nothing we have to offer that will cause [the Taliban] to preserve the things they’ve been fighting to erase."

Adds Christine Fair, a Georgetown University professor of Foreign Service education and an expert on Afghanistan: "They’re really clear that they want to roll back the rights of women. And they don’t want to contest elections. They believe that they should be given a piece of the government [more than a piece, I'd say] because they have killing power."

And they'll use it. The Taliban will use its killing power to topple Afghanistan's government — any notion that it will compromise Allah so as to please the country's more secular moderates is morbidly fanciful; it will use it to bring a swift end to any notions of moderation itself; and, as Ms. Fair notes, it will use it to re-suppress the rights of women. All because the Taliban misreads the Koran.

It's heartbreaking, for sure — especially the fate of the nation's women. But what's happening in Afghanistan is the same as what happened in Vietnam: a civil war, which the United States, with all its power, was powerless to divert into peace and Southeast Asian human rights.

As heartbreaking as it is, neither Joe Biden nor Tony Blinken can possibly conceive a soft, interventionist resolution to Afghanistan's hard, cultural debilitation — because of, mostly, religious fundamentalism. And so they are left with spin.

A Rendezvous with Destiny: a vital, new Biden admin proposal

The majority American public must rally 'round Biden's plan, since an unbearable minority of the American public is being dangerously polluted, nightly, by Carlson's toxic emissions. Every now and then I drop by his padded cell — he can be reached there at General Delivery, Fox News, NYC — at the top of his appointed hour and, invariably, he has replaced whatever the actual news of the day was with yet another screed about Hillary's wicked manipulations, or Joe's communism, or the approaching, unconquerable threat to the American way of life being perpetrated by a dozen or so people of some color other than white, yelling unheard-of obscenities at even fewer passersby, mostly paying the former no attention.

All of which leads to the Lincoln Project's even more pertinent — and perhaps less facetious — issue than that of the Borowitz Report:

Is he going insane?
pic.twitter.com/ZD6J0LFZtv

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) April 22, 2021

For that, Fox News pays the 51-year-old, 12-year-old Tucker $6 million a year. And that throws into question Fox News' sanity as well.

Useless Idiots: The latest, and bestest, in GOP stand-up comedy - rimshot to ensue

From the Wall Street Journal, one of the funniest, "serious" news stories it has ever been my delight to read.

Although House Republicans voted in March to euthanize their terminally ailing ban on earmarks, yesterday, Senate Republicans kept theirs on life support — sort of — by simply skipping a similar vote.

Perhaps because only 19 of our 50 Republican statesmen had put their Hancock on Sen. Mike Lee's circulated letter vowing to never pull the plug on earmarks, "some GOP senators," reports the WSJ, "say they will ignore the prohibition and start requesting money" anyway.

Sen. Richard Shelby, for example, said that GOP senators "absolutely" can now grab some cash, notwithstanding the ban's continuing existence. Even funnier, "earmarks," said Shelby, are "going to have to be substantive in nature and meaningful for us to really even consider them." Right. No one wants, or can even conceive of, Republican pols proposing anything irrational or meaningless — anything as meaningless as, say, 70 GOP votes to repeal Obamacare.

Publicly joining Shelby — so far — are Sens. Susan Collins and Mike Rounds. The former, in one of her wholesome, knee-slapping tautologies, said she'll ask for Maine earmarks "subject to certain guidelines if they’re for public purposes" — "for public purposes" being the very definition of earmarks. Rounds, on the other hand, boldly declared that he's "going to do what I think is right for South Dakota," so to hell with those folks always urging him to do what is wrong for South Dakota. In classic Luntzian language, the good senator added that he and some others "prefer the term 'congressionally directed spending."

When it comes to linguistic tortures, stand-up comedy and general gobbledygook, you just can't beat Republicans.