Things are bad, when ...

"I have read someplace that the networks were 97 percent against me, I get 97 percent negative, and yet I won and easily," said Trump yesterday while fleeing Britain (which really hates his guts) and flaring his portly neck in a show of intimidating bluster.

The narrator mistakes the national venue but accurately describes the island-fleeing creature.

We can't know what or where this "someplace" was because it doesn't exist except in the tenebrous bile of his reptilian brain. But we do know that we had wished the networks would be 97 percent against him rather than cleaning up the venomous garbage that repeatedly rolled off his primordial tongue, which is what they did 97 percent of the time.

Trump then waxed regulatory and, as is his taxonomic nature, ignorantly: "They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away," he hissed. That "will be up to [the FCC's] Brendan Carr.... They’re not allowed to do that."

Yes they are "allowed" to criticize and ridicule ignorant lizard brains in Italian suits, notwithstanding the high public offices they hold but shouldn't be holding if they're ignorant lizards.

And no it's not up to your boy Brendan to take away their licenses because networks have no licenses to take away; only their affiliates do. The FCC: "We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks."

Continued the addled ectotherm: "When you have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump. That’s all they do. If you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said," it said — the "something" and "somebody" as concrete as the misty, watercolored-"someplace" memory of its empty, pre-mammalian mind.

And yet on occasion I wonder if humanity's cognitive vacancy is expanding in line with the cosmos' dark matter. My curiosity occurs not when reading some conventional knows-nothing manifesto from an organ of Trumpian fascism — that, no wonder — but rather journalistic spawns of the Enlightenment, such as The New York Times.

The most recent example of these phenomena occurred only this morning. Reported the Gray Lady in an otherwise informative piece on how outrage first simmers online, then blows: "Critics have said [Jimmy] Kimmel’s monologue was inaccurate because he said that 'the MAGA gang was desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.'"

With that, about that — "Critics said" — the reporting had nothing to add. Which permitted a significant slice of a dark matter to continue expanding.

When Kimmel said that MAGA "was desperately trying" to color Kirk's assassin "as anything other than one of them," he did not say — he was not saying — that the assassin was one of them. He merely noted that Trump's Beezlebubs were frantic in removing themselves from any political or twisted philosophical connections to the killer.

Thus a torching-burning mob of "critics," as the Times gently labeled the assassins of Mr. Kimmel's character, exploited a late-night "inaccuracy" that wasn't. What the host — a comedian, for God's sake — did say was so self-evident I dispensed with clarifying his truthful humor in yesterday's post. Having now read the Times' report on Kimmel's ensuing impalement, I see that was a mistake.

Things are bad, you know, when the skull of the misclassified president of the United States houses a lizard brain and the paper of record leaves its readers in the dark on matters of ever-expanding ignorance.

***

This piece is cross-posted in Substack.