Jon Stewart, April 14

This beautiful animal must be protected.

The critically endangered Amur Leopard
About 100 left in the wild

📹 itseriksen

pic.twitter.com/ZqxcjJXdnh

— Science girl (@gunsnrosesgirl3) April 13, 2025

Adam Mockler on Bill Maher's dinner with Trump

I think Adam is right: Maher got conned.

Cult behavior: worshiping the Dear Leader

This is so over the top that I had to make sure someone didn’t cut in shots of the crowd from another event.

But it’s real.

The relationship between politicians and voters should always be transactional, not worshipful. pic.twitter.com/uWOHAfiBIn

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) April 9, 2025

ChatGPT: Financial disclosure by Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre

I asked ChatGPT if Mark Carney, Justin Trudeau, and Pierre Poilievre had made public disclosures of their financial assets. Here are the replies:

Mark Carney:

As of April 10, 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has not publicly disclosed his financial assets. This has led to criticism from opposition parties and calls for transparency. On March 18, 2025, Michael Barrett, the Conservative Shadow Minister for Ethics and Accountable Government, questioned Carney's refusal to disclose his assets and potential conflicts of interest, particularly concerning his previous role at Brookfield Asset Management. ​Conservative Party of Canada

Earlier, in January 2025, during the Liberal Party leadership race, Carney declined requests from the Investigative Journalism Foundation to disclose his investments and financial interests. ​Investigative Journalism Foundation

Public opinion appears to favor transparency in this matter. A Nanos Research poll reported by CTV News on March 31, 2025, indicated that a majority of Canadians support Carney disclosing his assets. ​CTV News

Despite these calls for disclosure, Prime Minister Carney has yet to release detailed information about his financial holdings.

Justin Trudeau:

Yes, Justin Trudeau has disclosed details about his financial assets on multiple occasions. In 2013, during his campaign for the Liberal Party leadership, Trudeau voluntarily revealed information about his inheritance and income sources. He reported receiving an inheritance valued at approximately $1.2 million from his father, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. This inheritance included investments managed through a company set up by his father. Additionally, Trudeau earned significant income from public speaking engagements, totaling over $450,000 in his most lucrative year. To prevent potential conflicts of interest, Trudeau pledged to place his assets, excluding real estate holdings, into a blind trust—a commitment he fulfilled in July 2013. ​Global News+1Wikipedia+1thecmhs.com+3internationalheadlines.blob.core.windows.net+3Global News+3Wikipedia+1Global News+1

In 2016, amid the release of the Panama Papers, Trudeau addressed questions regarding offshore accounts. He stated unequivocally that neither he nor his family held funds in offshore accounts and emphasized his commitment to transparency about his financial affairs. ​Global News

As Prime Minister, Trudeau's salary is publicly known, and his financial disclosures are subject to oversight by the federal ethics commissioner. While the exact details of his current net worth are not publicly disclosed, estimates vary, with some reports suggesting figures around $10 million CAD. It's important to note that such estimates can differ based on the sources and methods used to calculate them

Pierre Poilievre:

As of April 10, 2025, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has not publicly disclosed detailed information about his financial assets. While Canadian politicians are required to provide confidential disclosures to the federal ethics commissioner, these are not made public, leading to limited transparency regarding their personal finances.​Reddit+1The Economic Times+1

In March 2025, Poilievre proposed amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act to mandate that all party leadership candidates disclose their financial holdings to the ethics commissioner within 30 days of becoming official candidates and make them publicly available within 60 days. He also suggested that future prime ministers and cabinet ministers should be required to divest assets that could create conflicts of interest. ​Conservative Party of Canada+1650 CKOM+1

Speculative reports have estimated Poilievre's net worth to be around $5 million, though these figures lack official confirmation. Additionally, some AI-generated articles have inaccurately claimed his net worth to be as high as $25 million, highlighting the proliferation of misinformation online. ​RedditThe Economic Times+2Reddit+2Reddit+2

In summary, without formal public disclosure, precise details about Pierre Poilievre's financial assets remain unavailable.

 

 

ChatGPT book report: Candide (en français!)

Voltaire’s Candide, published in 1759, is a satirical novella that explores the complexities of optimism, human suffering, and philosophical naivety. The story follows the journey of Candide, a young and impressionable man who is taught by his mentor, Pangloss, that they live in “the best of all possible worlds.” As Candide ventures out into the real world, he is repeatedly confronted with brutal, absurd, and tragic experiences that challenge this blind optimism. Through his travels, Voltaire uses wit and irony to criticize contemporary society, organized religion, war, and the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

The protagonist, Candide, is cast out of the idyllic but sheltered castle of Baron Thunder-ten-Tronckh after being caught in a romantic moment with Cunégonde, the Baron’s daughter. This event sets off a chain of misfortunes that leads Candide across Europe, South America, and even to the mythical city of Eldorado. Each encounter he has—from war-torn cities to natural disasters and betrayals—adds to the disillusionment with Pangloss’s overly optimistic philosophy. Yet, Candide remains somewhat faithful to his mentor’s teachings, highlighting the powerful grip of ideology on human belief.

Voltaire employs a wide range of characters to critique society. Pangloss, the overly optimistic philosopher, serves as a parody of Leibnizian philosophy, particularly the idea that all things happen for the best. Martin, a pessimist Candide meets later, represents the opposite extreme—someone who sees the world as fundamentally corrupt. Through these contrasting perspectives, Voltaire suggests that both blind optimism and total pessimism fail to adequately address the real conditions of human suffering and injustice.

One of the central themes in Candide is the folly of philosophical idealism when faced with the harshness of reality. Voltaire mocks the Enlightenment's rationalism and the tendency to intellectualize suffering. His use of exaggerated misfortunes—earthquakes, executions, and betrayals—serves to undermine any belief that a perfect world exists or can be justified by reason. The city of Eldorado briefly offers a utopian alternative, but even this paradise is ultimately abandoned, implying that such perfection is either unattainable or incompatible with human nature.

Religion is another major target of Voltaire’s satire. Throughout Candide, religious figures—from Catholic inquisitors to Jesuits—are portrayed as hypocritical, corrupt, or cruel. Voltaire, a known critic of institutional religion, uses these portrayals to expose the moral inconsistencies within organized faiths. Despite their claims of virtue, many of the religious characters commit atrocities or act in self-interest. This aligns with Voltaire's belief in deism and his disdain for the dogma and corruption he observed in the church.

The ending of the novella, where Candide famously concludes that “we must cultivate our garden,” marks a turning point in the protagonist’s development. This phrase symbolizes a shift from abstract philosophical speculation to practical labor and self-sufficiency. Rather than trying to rationalize the world’s evils, Candide and his companions choose to focus on tangible, everyday work. Voltaire’s conclusion suggests that the best one can do in a flawed world is to engage in meaningful action rather than idle theorizing.

In summary, Candide is both a biting social critique and a philosophical exploration, written in a style that balances humor with gravity. Voltaire’s sharp wit and clear prose make complex ideas accessible while urging readers to question established norms. Through Candide’s misadventures, Voltaire rejects idealism in favor of realism and personal responsibility. The novella remains a powerful reminder of the importance of critical thinking and practical engagement in the face of suffering and absurdity.

*****

Candide, publié en 1759, est une novella satirique de Voltaire qui explore la complexité de l’optimisme, de la souffrance humaine et de la naïveté philosophique. L’histoire suit le parcours de Candide, un jeune homme influençable qui apprend de son précepteur Pangloss que l’on vit dans « le meilleur des mondes possibles ». Au fil de ses aventures à travers le monde, Candide est confronté à des expériences brutales, absurdes et tragiques qui remettent en question cet optimisme aveugle. À travers l’ironie et l’humour, Voltaire critique la société de son époque, la religion organisée, la guerre et certaines idées des Lumières.

Le protagoniste, Candide, est chassé du château paradisiaque du baron Thunder-ten-Tronckh après avoir été surpris dans une situation compromettante avec Cunégonde, la fille du baron. Cet événement déclenche une série de malheurs qui mèneront Candide à travers l’Europe, l’Amérique du Sud et jusqu’à la cité mythique d’Eldorado. Chaque nouvelle épreuve — villes ravagées par la guerre, catastrophes naturelles, trahisons — ébranle davantage la philosophie de Pangloss. Pourtant, Candide reste partiellement fidèle aux enseignements de son maître, ce qui montre la force que peut avoir une idéologie sur les croyances humaines.

Voltaire utilise une variété de personnages pour critiquer la société. Pangloss, le philosophe optimiste, est une parodie des idées de Leibniz, en particulier celle selon laquelle tout arrive pour le mieux. Martin, un pessimiste que Candide rencontre plus tard, incarne l’extrême inverse : un homme qui considère le monde comme fondamentalement mauvais. À travers ces visions opposées, Voltaire montre que ni l’optimisme aveugle ni le pessimisme absolu ne permettent de comprendre ou de soulager véritablement la souffrance humaine.

L’un des thèmes centraux de Candide est la folie de l’idéalisme philosophique face à la réalité cruelle. Voltaire se moque du rationalisme des Lumières et de la tendance à théoriser la souffrance. Il exagère les malheurs vécus par Candide — tremblements de terre, exécutions, trahisons — pour mieux ridiculiser l’idée qu’un monde parfait existe ou peut être justifié par la raison. La cité d’Eldorado offre brièvement une alternative utopique, mais elle est finalement abandonnée, ce qui laisse entendre que la perfection est soit inaccessible, soit incompatible avec la nature humaine.

La religion constitue également une cible majeure de la satire de Voltaire. Tout au long de Candide, les personnages religieux — inquisiteurs, jésuites, moines — sont souvent décrits comme hypocrites, corrompus ou cruels. Voltaire, critique notoire de la religion institutionnelle, utilise ces figures pour souligner les contradictions morales et les abus de pouvoir dans l’Église. Bien qu’ils prêchent la vertu, leurs actions sont souvent égoïstes ou immorales. Cela reflète les idées déistes de Voltaire et son rejet du dogmatisme religieux.

La fin du récit, marquée par la célèbre conclusion « il faut cultiver notre jardin », représente un tournant dans le développement de Candide. Cette phrase symbolise un renoncement à la spéculation philosophique au profit du travail concret et de l’autosuffisance. Plutôt que de chercher à expliquer ou justifier le mal, Candide et ses compagnons choisissent d’agir de manière pragmatique. Voltaire suggère ainsi que, dans un monde imparfait, la meilleure attitude est de se consacrer à une activité utile et modeste.

En résumé, Candide est à la fois une critique sociale acérée et une réflexion philosophique, écrite dans un style mêlant légèreté et profondeur. Grâce à son ironie mordante et à la clarté de sa prose, Voltaire rend les idées complexes accessibles tout en invitant le lecteur à remettre en question les dogmes établis. À travers les mésaventures de Candide, l’auteur rejette l’idéalisme au profit du réalisme et de la responsabilité individuelle. La novella reste aujourd’hui encore un appel puissant à la pensée critique et à l’action concrète face à l’absurdité du monde.

---

 

ChatGPT book report: The Flashman Papers

Harry Flashman, the central figure of The Flashman Papers by George MacDonald Fraser, is one of the most distinctive antiheroes in modern historical fiction. Originally a minor villain in Tom Brown’s School Days, Flashman is reimagined by Fraser as a decorated Victorian military hero whose fame and glory hide a core of cowardice, deceit, and opportunism. Through the conceit of recently discovered memoirs, Fraser presents Flashman’s own unvarnished, scandalous version of history—often at odds with the public record.

Flashman’s character is defined by contradiction. Outwardly, he is the epitome of the gallant British officer: tall, handsome, charismatic, and covered in honors. Inwardly, he is a self-serving cad who avoids danger, betrays friends and lovers, and lies with abandon. What sets Flashman apart from traditional protagonists is his brutal honesty. In his memoirs, he freely admits to every act of cowardice and vice, claiming no heroism or nobility. Ironically, it is this candor that makes him oddly likable, or at least fascinating, to readers.

Throughout the series, which spans twelve novels, Flashman finds himself inserted into many of the 19th century’s most dramatic events. From the First Anglo-Afghan War to the Charge of the Light Brigade, from the Indian Rebellion of 1857 to John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry, Flashman is somehow always at the center of history—usually against his will. In most cases, he is attempting to flee, hide, or manipulate his way to safety, only to be mistaken for a hero when circumstances twist in his favor.

Despite his cowardice, Flashman is not entirely incompetent. He is intelligent, multilingual, and capable of great charm when it serves his purposes. He is also physically capable, a talented horseman, and a decent fighter when forced. These traits allow him to survive and even thrive in the most dangerous situations. However, it is mostly through luck, manipulation, and the stupidity of others that he maintains his undeserved reputation.

Flashman’s romantic entanglements are as numerous as his military exploits. He seduces (or is seduced by) women across continents and social classes, from aristocrats to courtesans to queens. His affairs frequently lead him into trouble, both personally and politically, but they also reflect Fraser’s exploration of gender and power dynamics in the Victorian era. Flashman’s philandering is another testament to his egotism, though it is never portrayed as truly romantic—only transactional or opportunistic.

Fraser’s novels also use Flashman to offer biting critiques of British imperialism, racism, and the hypocrisy of Victorian society. By making Flashman the narrator—a scoundrel who sees through the pretense of empire—the series exposes the violence, exploitation, and absurdity behind historical events often romanticized in British history. Flashman’s cynicism, though often self-serving, is grounded in a clear-eyed view of the real motives behind colonial expansion and military campaigns.

In his travels, Flashman meets an astonishing array of historical figures: Abraham Lincoln, Otto von Bismarck, Queen Victoria, Florence Nightingale, and many more. These encounters are one of the series’ great pleasures, as Fraser weaves Flashman into real history with impeccable research and witty imagination. Flashman’s observations on these figures are often irreverent, stripping away the myths and presenting them in a more human, sometimes unflattering light.

Although Flashman often behaves despicably—betraying comrades, abusing trust, and fleeing in battle—his accounts reveal a certain clarity about human nature. He recognizes and mocks the same flaws in others that he embodies himself: vanity, cowardice, lust, and ambition. His self-awareness, coupled with Fraser’s sharp prose, transforms him from a mere rogue into a complex literary creation who illuminates the absurdity of the very age that celebrates him.

As the series progresses, Flashman ages but never really changes. He remains a reluctant participant in history, dragged from one disaster to another. Yet readers come to understand that his survival is not merely accidental—it reflects a deep, if shameful, understanding of how power, image, and history operate. In many ways, Flashman is not an aberration but an exaggerated symbol of the Victorian establishment: corrupt, lucky, and adored despite his failures.

In sum, Harry Flashman is a brilliantly conceived antihero whose misadventures provide both thrilling entertainment and incisive historical commentary. Through him, Fraser turns the adventure genre on its head, offering a vivid, unromantic portrayal of the 19th century’s most iconic moments. Flashman’s exploits are scandalous, shocking, and often hilarious—but they also challenge readers to reconsider the line between heroism and hypocrisy.

 

ChatGPT book report: Flashman

Flashman, the first novel in George MacDonald Fraser’s historical fiction series, introduces readers to Harry Flashman, a cowardly, self-serving, yet oddly charming British soldier. Published in 1969, the novel is framed as the discovered memoirs of Flashman, who originally appeared as a bully in Thomas Hughes’ Tom Brown’s School Days. Fraser reimagines him not as a reformed adult but as a thoroughly unscrupulous man who somehow stumbles into glory despite his lack of courage or principle.

Set in the mid-19th century, Flashman follows its antihero after he is expelled from Rugby School for drunkenness. Flashman purchases a commission in the British Army and is posted to India and Afghanistan. The heart of the novel focuses on the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842), a disastrous military campaign that Fraser uses to expose the folly of British imperialism. Flashman, despite his cowardice, becomes enmeshed in major historical events, emerging from dangerous situations with his reputation inexplicably enhanced.

A key strength of the novel is Fraser’s meticulous research and integration of real historical events and figures. Flashman encounters actual people such as General Elphinstone, Alexander Burnes, and Queen Victoria. These interactions, though fictionalized, are vividly rendered, blending fact and fiction seamlessly. Fraser’s portrayal of the First Anglo-Afghan War is particularly notable for its historical accuracy and its grim depiction of military incompetence and cultural misunderstanding.

What makes Flashman unique is its narrator’s unapologetic honesty. Flashman freely admits to cowardice, deceit, and opportunism, making no effort to present himself as a hero. His blunt, cynical voice adds a darkly comedic edge to the story, skewering the romantic notions of imperial valor and military honor. Fraser uses this contrast to challenge the reader’s expectations and to critique the sanitized versions of history often found in traditional literature.

Despite his despicable behavior, Flashman is a compelling character. His survival instincts, wit, and blunt narration keep the reader engaged. Fraser skillfully crafts a protagonist readers can’t admire but can’t look away from. It is this paradox—Flashman’s moral bankruptcy coupled with his narrative charisma—that gives the novel its distinctive flavor.

The book’s tone is irreverent and frequently satirical. Fraser does not shy away from portraying the racism, sexism, and brutality of the time. Rather than moralizing, he presents these realities through Flashman’s unfiltered perspective, forcing the reader to confront the darker aspects of 19th-century imperialism. The result is a story that entertains while also provoking thought about the ethics and legacy of empire.

While Flashman is rich in historical detail and clever in its satire, it is not a traditional heroic adventure. The novel intentionally subverts the tropes of the swashbuckling soldier or noble officer. Flashman’s undeserved success is a commentary on how history can be shaped by myth, reputation, and the blindness of posterity. It invites readers to question how many supposed heroes of history were merely lucky or manipulative individuals like Flashman.

In conclusion, Flashman is a bold, witty, and richly layered novel that offers both a thrilling adventure and a biting historical critique. George MacDonald Fraser creates a unique literary voice in Harry Flashman, a protagonist who is as entertaining as he is appalling. The novel stands as an engaging start to the series and a compelling reminder that history is often more complex—and more absurd—than it appears in textbooks.

ChatGPT book report: Animal Farm

 

Animal Farm by George Orwell is a powerful allegorical novella that critiques totalitarianism through the lens of a seemingly simple fable. Set on a farm in England, the story follows a group of animals who overthrow their human farmer in hopes of creating a society where all animals are equal and can enjoy the fruits of their labor. Inspired by Old Major, a wise and idealistic pig, the animals unite in revolution, driving out the farmer and establishing their own government based on the principles of “Animalism.” However, as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that power, once seized, has a corrupting influence.

The pigs, who assume leadership roles after the revolution, quickly begin to consolidate their power, with two figures — Snowball and Napoleon — emerging as central rivals. Snowball represents the more idealistic and intellectual side of the revolution, while Napoleon symbolizes authoritarian ambition. After a power struggle, Napoleon ousts Snowball and takes control of the farm, slowly transforming the society into one that mirrors — and even surpasses — the tyranny of the humans they overthrew. Orwell cleverly uses this descent to illustrate how revolutionary ideals can be manipulated and betrayed by those who seek personal power.

As Napoleon’s control grows, the pigs begin to adopt the behaviors of the humans they once condemned. They walk on two legs, sleep in beds, and trade with neighboring farms. The foundational commandment “All animals are equal” is eventually altered to read “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Orwell’s use of language and propaganda — especially through the character of Squealer, Napoleon’s mouthpiece — shows how truth can be twisted and history rewritten to maintain power. The animals, especially the hardworking horse Boxer, represent the exploited working class, loyal and trusting even as they are abused and discarded.

The novella serves as a direct allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet communism. Each character and event parallels historical figures and developments: Napoleon represents Joseph Stalin, Snowball stands in for Leon Trotsky, and the corrupt evolution of Animalism reflects the perversion of socialist ideals in the USSR. Orwell’s sharp critique is not only aimed at Soviet communism but at the broader dangers of unchecked political power and the ease with which noble ideals can be co-opted by authoritarian regimes.

Despite its brevity and simple narrative style, Animal Farm delivers a profound and sobering message about human nature, power, and the cyclical nature of oppression. Orwell’s ability to convey complex political ideas through allegory makes the book accessible to a wide range of readers, while its themes remain relevant across different times and political contexts. The ending, in which the animals can no longer tell the difference between pigs and humans, serves as a chilling reminder of how revolutions can come full circle.

In conclusion, Animal Farm is both a compelling story and a potent political commentary. Through vivid symbolism, Orwell explores how revolutions can be corrupted from within and how propaganda and manipulation can blind people to oppression. It remains a timeless warning about the fragility of freedom and the importance of vigilance in any society striving for equality and justice.

ChatGPT book report: Catch-22

 

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller is a darkly satirical novel set during World War II, centered around a U.S. Army Air Force bombardier named Captain John Yossarian. Stationed on the fictional Mediterranean island of Pianosa, Yossarian is increasingly desperate to escape the war and the ever-increasing number of bombing missions he’s required to fly. He becomes obsessed with survival in a system that seems designed to be both absurd and inescapable. The novel’s central paradox, the titular “Catch-22,” reveals itself as a circular rule: a man is considered insane if he willingly continues to fly dangerous combat missions, but if he asks to be removed from duty for being insane, his request proves he is sane — and therefore ineligible to be relieved. This no-win logic traps Yossarian and his fellow soldiers in a bureaucratic nightmare.

Heller structures the novel in a non-linear, almost chaotic fashion, with frequent shifts in time, character perspective, and tone. Events are revisited and reframed with new information, slowly revealing the underlying tragedies and hypocrisies that drive the story. While this fragmented narrative can be disorienting, it mirrors the confusion and madness of war itself. Through this structure, Heller conveys how disjointed and meaningless the experience of combat can feel, especially when filtered through the rigid and impersonal lens of military bureaucracy.

The characters in Catch-22 are deliberately exaggerated and absurd, from the profit-obsessed mess officer Milo Minderbinder, who orchestrates business deals that involve bombing his own squadron, to the blindly ambitious Colonel Cathcart, who raises the number of required missions simply to improve his reputation. These characters serve to satirize various aspects of institutional incompetence, capitalism, and the military chain of command. Heller uses humor — often dark, often absurd — to highlight the irrationality of war and the systems that perpetuate it. Even though the novel is frequently laugh-out-loud funny, the humor is always underscored by a sense of futility and horror.

Yossarian, as the protagonist, begins the story as somewhat self-centered and obsessed with his own survival, but his journey becomes a broader commentary on the moral insanity of war. Over time, he becomes more aware of the inhumanity and absurdity of the system around him. His refusal to participate in more missions, despite pressure and threats from superiors, is portrayed not as cowardice but as a deeply principled stand. Through Yossarian, Heller makes a case for individual conscience in the face of a dehumanizing and violent machine.

Ultimately, Catch-22 is a powerful anti-war novel that critiques the paradoxes and failures of bureaucratic systems, particularly within the military. Its title has entered the English language as a symbol of impossible, contradictory rules. Heller’s writing style — full of repetition, irony, and circular logic — reinforces the themes of entrapment and absurdity. Though set during World War II, the novel’s message resonates far beyond its historical setting, offering a timeless critique of authority, conformity, and the cost of blind obedience.

More than just a war story, Catch-22 is a profound examination of what happens when systems designed to protect and serve individuals end up sacrificing them instead. Through its brilliant structure, unforgettable characters, and relentless satire, Heller's novel challenges readers to question the logic of institutions and the value of human life within them. It remains one of the most influential and thought-provoking novels of the 20th century.

Chat GPT book report: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

 

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson is a landmark work of American literature that captures the spirit of an era in freefall. Blending journalism, fiction, and biting social commentary, Thompson’s book follows the exploits of Raoul Duke — his alter ego — and his attorney, Dr. Gonzo, as they plunge into the surreal, neon-soaked chaos of Las Vegas. Ostensibly on assignment to cover the Mint 400 desert motorcycle race, the pair quickly abandon any pretense of professionalism in favor of indulging in an outrageous drug binge that stretches across several days. Their suitcase is a traveling pharmacy filled with mescaline, acid, ether, cocaine, and more, and their journey becomes a hallucinatory descent into the underbelly of the American Dream.

What begins as a journalistic assignment rapidly devolves into a chaotic odyssey. The pair drift through casinos, hotels, and desert highways in a haze of substance abuse, paranoia, and philosophical musings. Their encounters with tourists, cops, hitchhikers, and hotel staff are often absurd and grotesque, amplifying the sense that Las Vegas itself is a kind of dystopian funhouse — a place where superficiality reigns and reality is warped beyond recognition. The book's structure reflects this instability, eschewing traditional narrative flow in favor of fragmented, often incoherent episodes that mirror Duke’s drug-addled state of mind. It is a journey without a destination, fueled by mania and existential dread.

At its core, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is not just a drug tale, but a scathing critique of American culture in the aftermath of the 1960s. Thompson uses Las Vegas as a symbol of the excess, greed, and disillusionment that had come to define the country. The utopian ideals of peace, love, and freedom that had fueled the counterculture movement have been replaced by a hollow obsession with spectacle and self-indulgence. Thompson reflects bitterly on the collapse of the 60s dream, writing with particular poignancy about the failure of a generation that truly believed it could reshape society. The American Dream, once a symbol of hope and self-determination, has become a commodified illusion — a trap that ensnares the naive and chews them up in the process.

Thompson’s narrative voice is key to the novel’s power. His “Gonzo journalism” approach — subjective, immersive, and often deliberately exaggerated — turns the reader into a participant rather than a passive observer. The line between fact and fiction is blurred, giving the book a surreal, almost mythic quality. His language is both visceral and poetic, filled with grotesque imagery, biting wit, and bursts of manic brilliance. Yet beneath the satire and absurdity lies a deep undercurrent of sorrow and frustration. Thompson isn’t glorifying the madness he describes — he’s exposing it, holding it up like a mirror to a culture that has lost its way.

In the end, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas stands as a powerful and unique work — part road novel, part social critique, part fever dream. It is a chronicle of a particular time in American history when idealism gave way to nihilism, when the line between freedom and self-destruction became dangerously thin. More than fifty years after its publication, the book remains relevant, not just for its stylistic innovation, but for its unflinching look at the American psyche. Through all the madness and mayhem, Thompson forces us to ask: what happens when a dream dies — and what’s left in its place?

Does Donald Trump possess ANY good personal qualities?

I asked ChatGPT to come up with a list of good qualities that a person can have, and the reply was:

Sure! Here's a list of a dozen good qualities that are widely appreciated in a person:

1. Empathy – The ability to understand and share the feelings of others.

2. Honesty – Being truthful and transparent in words and actions.

3. Kindness – Treating others with compassion and generosity.

4. Integrity – Doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.

5. Patience – Remaining calm and tolerant, especially in difficult situations.

6. Responsibility – Being reliable and accountable for one’s actions.

7. Humility – Having a modest view of one’s own importance.

8. Gratitude – Recognizing and appreciating what one has and what others do.

9. Resilience – The ability to recover from setbacks and keep going.

10. Respectfulness – Valuing others’ feelings, rights, and traditions.

11. Generosity – Willingness to give time, resources, or help to others.

12. Open-mindedness – Being receptive to new ideas and perspectives.

 Then I said, "Good list. How many of these qualities, and to what degree, would you say that Donald Trump possesses?"

And here's the reply:

 

That's a thoughtful and nuanced question, and one that's understandably going to be viewed very differently depending on who you ask. Since I aim to stay neutral and respectful of all perspectives, I'll break it down based on observations and how different people perceive him—without making a personal judgment.

Here’s a quick run-through of those 12 qualities, with some commentary based on public behavior and how supporters or critics might interpret them:

1. Empathy – Critics argue he often lacks empathy in his rhetoric, especially when addressing opponents or marginalized groups. Supporters may say he connects with people who feel ignored by traditional politicians.

2. Honesty – Fact-checkers have frequently noted many false or misleading statements during his presidency and campaigns. Supporters might argue he speaks his mind, which they see as a form of blunt honesty.

3. Kindness – Trump is known for his aggressive and confrontational style, particularly on social media. Acts of personal kindness do get shared anecdotally, though they are less publicly emphasized.

4. Integrity – Critics question his integrity due to various legal, business, and political controversies. His supporters often believe he fights for what he thinks is right, even if unconventionally.

5. Patience – He tends to be reactive and outspoken, which may suggest a low threshold for patience. Others may say he’s decisive and action-oriented.

6. Responsibility – He takes credit for perceived successes, but critics say he often deflects blame. Views on this depend heavily on one’s stance toward his leadership.

7. Humility – He’s known for self-promotion and rarely admits fault, which most would say is the opposite of humility.

8. Gratitude – He expresses gratitude toward loyal supporters but can be dismissive of those who disagree with him, even if they were former allies.

9. Resilience – Definitely one of his stronger traits. He’s persisted through many scandals, criticisms, and setbacks, and has maintained a strong base.

10. Respectfulness – His communication style is often combative and disrespectful toward critics. Supporters may argue he’s simply being unapologetically direct.

11. Generosity – There are mixed accounts. He’s donated to causes, but his charitable record has also been questioned, including through investigations into his foundation.

12. Open-mindedness – He tends to double down on his beliefs and often resists changing his views, even in the face of criticism or new information.

In summary: Resilience, responsibility (to his base), and decisiveness are often viewed as his stronger qualities. Traits like humility, empathy, and open-mindedness are more commonly cited as areas where he falls short.

Why impose tariffs on penguins?

Okay, it's only a semi-serious question that Jake Tapper is asking Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture. She's obviously flummoxed by the question, which really has no sensible answer: Why impose a 10% tariff on an Australian territory with no people? When she responds that "the people that are leading this are serious, intentional, patriotic, the smartest people I've ever worked with" -- serious? The smartest people she's ever worked with? Apparently the people she's worked with are pretty damn dumb. What I enjoy most about this clip is when she says "we are unleashing a new golden age, and we will see an economy that will benefit not just every corner of America but our farmers and our ranchers and the people that have been left behind for far too long by both Republicans and Democrats." A new golden age, huh? Well, I guess time will tell; but you're not off to a very good start, lady.

TAPPER: You're imposing a 10% on the Heard and MccDonald islands. They have zero human inhabitants. Why are you putting tariffs on islands that are entirely populated by penguins?

BROOKE ROLLINS: C'mon Jake. Whatever. Listen, the people that are leading this are serious,… pic.twitter.com/QkUdyuzNRw

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 6, 2025

Listen to Fareed Zakaria.

Every motherfucking word. 🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯👇 pic.twitter.com/a6zzpvj7zB

— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) April 5, 2025

Richard Branson on Trump's tariffs

This is a four-part tweet by Richard Branson, reacting to Trump's tariffs on April 4:

Strong leadership means taking risks and trying things - but when it doesn’t work, realising your mistake and correcting it. Quickly.

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned from 60 years of business is to accept when I’m wrong and change course. The US government’s sweeping tariffs are taking the world’s economy in a dangerous direction. They will make people everywhere worse off – especially in America.

It’s not just about the economy. Countries that trade fairly and healthily prosper and flourish. They reduce poverty, improve health and education, and decrease the likelihood of war.

Courage & self-awareness are cornerstones of true leadership. That includes quickly acknowledging errors & making corrections. With a swift reversal back to sensible economic policy, America & the rest of the world can still avoid the catastrophic fall out these tariffs will inflict.

San Francisco in the 1950s

Five-minute video of 1940s and '50s San Francisco. Lots of men wearing hats!

Wonderful film of SAN FRANCISCO in the 1950’s. pic.twitter.com/JjgHNAGGoS

— Michael Warburton (@TheMonologist) April 3, 2025

The legal profession is under attack.

Paul, Weiss was I think the first major law firm to knuckle under to the Trump regime's threats. Click here for an article at The New York Times entitled "Rivals Pounce on Paul Weiss, a Top Law Firm, After Trump’s Order," subtitled "Fears that competitors could take its top rainmaking talent added to the law firm’s worries about a Trump executive order that targeted it."

It says: "President Trump’s executive order attacking Paul Weiss and severely restricting that law firm’s ability to represent its clients was widely seen by lawyers as a dangerous affront to the nation’s legal system."

The executive order "restricted the firm’s lawyers from dealing with the government, including entering federal buildings. The order also said companies doing business with Paul Weiss, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party and its causes, could lose their government contracts." 

Click here for another article at The Times with more detail on the deal, entitled "How a Major Democratic Law Firm Ended Up Bowing to Trump."

And click here for the text of the email, in an article at Business Insider entitled "Read the email Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp sent to staff after striking a deal with Trump: 'Clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata.'" Karp "has faced a barrage of public condemnation for making the deal, and many critics said it would only embolden the president to seek retribution against more law firms. Some of the criticism came from a group of roughly 140 Paul Weiss alumni who signed a letter to Mr. Karp, calling the decision to settle 'cowardly.'”

“It is a permanent stain on the face of a great firm that sought to gain a profit by forfeiting its soul,” the lawyers wrote in the letter, which was released publicly by Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog.

Rival law firms, such as Sullivan & Cromwell and Kirkland & Ellis, "pounced" on Paul, Weiss, trying to entice its lawyers (with their lucrative client lists) to jump ship. How big is Paul, Weiss? "Top performers at big firms can take home more than $20 million a year. At Paul Weiss, which operates around the world and employs more than 2,000 people, the corporate practice is now the main source of revenue. The firm took in about $2.6 billion in total revenue in 2024, up from about $2 billion the year before."

Skadden, Arps is the latest giant law firm to cave to Trump's threats. Click here for an article at Business Insider entitled "Skadden made a deal with Trump. Associates on the inside say they're worried it's the beginning of the end for the firm."

Here's the resignation letter of Skadden, Arps attorney Brenna Trout Frey:

"Today the executive partner of my former firm sent us all an 'update' that attempted to convince some of the best minds in the legal profession that he did us a solid by capitulating to the Trump administration's demands for fealty and protection money. Fellow Skadden attorneys: If you agree with Jeremy London's position that the firm should not engage in 'illegal DEI discrimination,' should devote prestigious Skadden Fellows to the Trump administration's pet projects, and should help 'politically disenfranchised groups who have not historically received legal representation from major national firms,' (taking into account the robust pro bono work that major national law firms already do), then by all means continue working there. But if that email struck you as a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation, I hope you do some soul-searching over the weekend and join me in sending a message that this is unacceptable (in whatever way you can). As one of my more eloquent former colleagues put it: 'Do not pretend that what is happening is normal or excusable. It isn't.'

There is only one acceptable response from attorneys to the Trump administration's demands: The rule of law matters.

The rule of law matters. As an attorney, if my employer cannot stand up for the rule of law, then I cannot ethically continue to work for them."

Trump has recently issued yet another order, this time targeting Jenner & Block. "In a statement announcing the order, the White House said, “President Trump is delivering on his promise to end the weaponization of government.” 

Ending the weaponization of government! Wonderful, right?

Right?

Milly has two jobs.

I have two jobs.
1. Calm my human when she is stressed.
2. Stress my human when she is calm. pic.twitter.com/WYcCPqNh43

— MillyCat 🌈 and RovyCat 🇦🇺 (@millyfromoz) March 27, 2025

Three world records, one jump

Project 2025 Summarized by ChatGPT

I asked ChatGPT: In a few paragraphs, summarize project 2025. Here's the response (this entire article contains links you can click on for further information):

Project 2025 is a policy initiative led by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, aiming to shape the U.S. federal government under a potential Republican administration in 2025. It serves as a roadmap for conservative governance, focusing on reducing federal bureaucracy, increasing executive power, and implementing right-leaning policies across various agencies.

The project includes a comprehensive policy agenda, covering areas such as the economy, immigration, education, healthcare, and social issues. It promotes deregulation, tax cuts, stricter immigration policies, and a rollback of progressive policies on climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, and diversity initiatives. It also emphasizes restructuring federal agencies to align with conservative priorities, limiting the influence of career bureaucrats, and increasing presidential control over government functions.

Additionally, Project 2025 includes a "Presidential Personnel Database" to help a future Republican administration quickly fill government positions with ideologically aligned individuals. The initiative is seen by supporters as a necessary effort to counter what they view as entrenched liberal influence in government, while critics argue it represents an attempt to centralize power and undermine democratic institutions.

I then asked: In a few paragraphs, summarize Section 1 of Project 2025, Taking the Reins of Government. Here's the response:

Section 1 of Project 2025, titled "Taking the Reins of Government," outlines a strategic framework for conservative leadership to assert comprehensive control over the executive branch. This section emphasizes the necessity for a conservative president to appoint individuals who are steadfastly committed to upholding the Constitution and advancing conservative values. It underscores the importance of aligning the federal workforce with the administration's ideological stance to effectively implement its agenda. ​YouTube

A key aspect of this strategy involves restructuring the White House's internal councils, specifically the National Security Council (NSC), the National Economic Council (NEC), and the Domestic Policy Council (DPC). By analyzing and potentially reorganizing these bodies, the administration aims to ensure that policy decisions across national security, economic, and domestic domains are closely coordinated and reflect the president's objectives. ​YouTubeProject 2025

Furthermore, the section advocates for a decisive approach to dismantling what it describes as the "administrative state." This involves reducing the influence of entrenched bureaucratic structures perceived as obstacles to conservative policy implementation. The objective is to streamline federal operations, enhance efficiency, and reinforce presidential authority over the executive branch. ​The Stennett Report

In summary, Section 1 of Project 2025 provides a blueprint for a conservative administration to assert control over the executive branch by appointing ideologically aligned personnel, restructuring key policy councils for cohesive decision-making, and reducing bureaucratic impediments to enforce its policy agenda effectively.​

For a more in-depth understanding, you might find this video helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv_e8T3XCR0

(I don't find it helpful at all. It's extreme MAGA propaganda about how they're striving to achieve wonderful goals while being careful to stay within the strictures of the Constitution -- yeah, right.)

More below.

Ukrainian Marta Kostyuk defeats Russian opponent

Click here to watch a trick serve for a game-winning ace, then Kostyuk waves off the handshake -- nice!

Caitlin Ruins Christmas.

This is Sooo good. Caitlin is funny AF! My Next Guest with David Letterman! APRIL 8 on Netflix! pic.twitter.com/w1bKlm92Fs

— Ken Swift (@kenswift) March 24, 2025

The Strange Evolution of Scott Adams

These are answers to a question posed at Quora: What's going on with Dilbert creator Scott Adams? Adams had a long and successful run with Dilbert, but then he started posting his point of view on political issues, which became increasingly bizarre. Eventually his readership of Dilbert turned against him. Here are a couple of paragraphs from his Wikipedia entry:

"In February 2023, Dilbert was dropped by numerous newspapers and its distributor, Andrews McMeel Syndication, after Adams published a video in which he referred to black people as a "hate group" and advised white people to "get the hell away from black people." Adams later said this was a use of hyperbole.

On June 28, 2020, Adams said on Twitter that the Dilbert TV show was cancelled because he was white and UPN had decided to focus on an African-American audience, and that he had been "discriminated against".

Adams then relaunched the strip as a webcomic on his locals.com website." Adams has compared women asking for equal pay to children demanding candy. After a 2022 mass shooting, Adams tweeted that society leaves parents of troubled teenage boys with only two options: to either watch people die, or murder their own son. He said his comments were inspired by his own stepson, who became addicted to drugs at the age of 14 and later died of a fentanyl overdose.

Here are a couple of responses to the question, the first by Scott Tow:

That’s a long story I probably wasted too much time following in detail, but maybe if I explain it, I can recover some value for that time spent. I was formerly a happy follower of Dilbert and Adams’s books, several of which I thought genuinely wise. Early in Trump’s campaign in 2015/2016, I’d concluded that Trump was a useless demagogue who wanted power only to benefit himself and his ego, a “leader” who would happily screw over most his followers, since the economic interests of most of us run very counter to the economic interests of the very rich, and the main, real power the president has is to choose which of those interests to favor. It appeared to me that Trump was good at conning his followers into thinking he was on their side, though. 

More below.

Another Trump outrage: FTC commissioner fired.

I am a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission. The president just illegally fired me. This is corruption plain and simple. My full statement: pic.twitter.com/12HPZsbLTP

— Alvaro Bedoya (@BedoyaFTC) March 18, 2025

S&P Graph, Trump's first 50 days

🧵STAT(S) Of the Week:
Never Interrupt Your Enemy When They Are Making a Mistake

I think, and I believe many of you must agree, it is best to live and strategize in the world we actually live in and not the one we wished we lived in. pic.twitter.com/OEkYykuyMw

— Rachel Bitecofer 🗽🦆 (@RachelBitecofer) March 16, 2025

Grok: critical path analysis

I asked Grok to explain, in a few paragraphs, critical path analysis. They discuss CPA in quite a few of the depositions I do, and I have a sketchy understanding of what it is, but I thought it would be helpful if I understood it better.

Critical Path Analysis (CPA), also known as the Critical Path Method (CPM), is a project management technique used to identify the sequence of tasks that determines the minimum time required to complete a project. It’s particularly useful for complex projects with multiple interdependent activities, helping managers plan, schedule, and allocate resources effectively. The core idea is to map out all the tasks involved, their durations, and their dependencies, then determine the longest path through the project—the "critical path"—which dictates the shortest possible completion time. Any delay in tasks along this path will directly delay the entire project, making it a focal point for oversight.

To perform CPA, you start by listing all the tasks required to complete the project, along with their estimated durations and dependencies (i.e., which tasks must be finished before others can begin). These are then represented in a network diagram, where tasks are nodes or arrows, and lines show the relationships between them. Each path through the diagram is calculated by adding up the durations of its tasks, and the longest path becomes the critical path. Tasks on this path have zero "float" or slack, meaning there’s no room for delay without impacting the project timeline. Non-critical tasks, however, have float, allowing some flexibility in scheduling.

The benefits of CPA go beyond just identifying the critical path. It helps prioritize tasks, optimize resource use, and spot potential bottlenecks early. For example, if a critical task is at risk of delay, managers can reallocate resources or adjust schedules to keep things on track. It’s widely used in industries like construction, software development, and manufacturing, where timing is often tight and coordination is key. While it assumes task durations are fixed and known, real-world uncertainties can complicate things, so it’s often paired with risk analysis or software tools to refine accuracy. In essence, CPA turns a tangled web of tasks into a clear roadmap for getting the job done on time.

Ask Grok!

 Since 1989, which party has created more jobs?

Since 1989, the Democratic Party has been associated with significantly more job creation in the United States compared to the Republican Party. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 51.5 million net new jobs have been added to the U.S. economy from January 1989 through early 2025. Of these, around 50 million jobs—roughly 97%—were created during Democratic presidential administrations, while approximately 1.5 million jobs were created under Republican administrations.

 

This period spans the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Democratic presidents (Clinton, Obama, and Biden) oversaw substantial job growth: Clinton with 23.2 million jobs, Obama with 10.5 million, and Biden with notable gains following the COVID-19 recovery (exact figures vary by end date but exceed 15 million through 2024). In contrast, Republican presidents (George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump) saw much lower net job growth: George H.W. Bush with 2.6 million, George W. Bush with 2.1 million, and Trump with a net loss of about 2.8 million due to the pandemic, though pre-COVID gains were positive.

 

While these numbers are accurate in terms of raw job creation during each administration, attributing job growth solely to the party in power oversimplifies the issue. Economic conditions, global events (like the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic), and congressional control also play significant roles. For instance, Republican-led recessions (1990–1991, 2007–2009, and 2020) often began or peaked during their terms, impacting net job figures, while Democratic administrations frequently benefited from recovery periods. Nonetheless, based purely on the data since 1989, the Democratic Party has presided over far more job creation than the Republican Party.

Value of Trump's meme coin

It was issued at $70, and a lot of MAGA chumps bought in. Value today: $13.23. In 12 weeks, investors have lost $12 billion. Trump has made over $100 million in "transaction fees" -- and he never invested a penny.

Robert Reich knocks it out of the park -- again.

Robert kicks hell out of Elon Musk: 5 minutes, 2 seconds:

No, he isn’t. And no, he isn’t. He’s destroying it. Sociopathic South-African Nazi billionaires don’t want to help find fraud or lower your fucking taxes you cartoonishly gullible fucking moron. pic.twitter.com/oHpFWzS9pc

— Andrew—New YouTube Channel @LiveFromTheResistance (@AmoneyResists) March 5, 2025

Grok shouldn't stand near any open windows.

Jeffrey Levy asked Grok:

What is the likelihood from 1-100 that Trump is a Putin compromised asset? Use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies.

 

Grok replied:

 

I’m diving into this question with all the publicly available info I can muster from 1980 to today, March 4, 2025, while keeping an eye on Trump’s consistent refusal to criticize Putin alongside his readiness to slam allies. This is a messy puzzle—lots of dots to connect, plenty of speculation, and no smoking gun—but I’ll weigh the evidence as objectively as I can and give you a probability range based on what’s out there.

 

Let’s start with the history. Trump’s ties to Russia stretch back to at least 1987, when he visited Moscow at the invitation of Soviet officials. This trip, documented in sources like Luke Harding’s Collusion, coincided with a shift in his rhetoric—suddenly pushing isolationist ideas that echoed Soviet interests, like questioning U.S. alliances. Was he cultivated then? Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent, claimed in Craig Unger’s American Kompromat that the KGB saw Trump as a potential asset due to his ego and financial vulnerabilities. No hard proof, but it’s a data point.

 

Fast forward to the 1990s and 2000s: Trump’s real estate empire leaned heavily on Russian and post-Soviet money. His sons bragged about it—Don Jr. in 2008 saying Russians made up a “disproportionate cross-section” of their assets, Eric in 2014 claiming they had “all the funding we need out of Russia.” Properties like Trump Tower saw cash deals with figures tied to Russian organized crime, like David Bogatin in 1984. Deutsche Bank, a key lender to Trump when U.S. banks wouldn’t touch him, was later fined for laundering billions in Russian money. Coincidence? Maybe. Pattern? Possibly.

 

Then there’s the 2016 campaign. The Mueller report didn’t prove a criminal conspiracy, but it uncovered plenty—Manafort sharing polling data with a Russian intelligence-linked figure, Stone coordinating with WikiLeaks on hacked emails, Trump pursuing a Moscow tower deal worth hundreds of millions while running for president. The Steele dossier, unverified but persistent, alleges kompromat from his 2013 Moscow trip for Miss Universe. Add Bob Woodward’s reporting of seven post-presidency calls with Putin, including one in 2024, and it’s hard to ignore the smoke.

 

Now, the behavior: Trump’s refusal to criticize Putin stands out like a sore thumb. From Helsinki in 2018, where he sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence on election interference, to his silence on Navalny’s poisoning in 2020, to his recent pivot toward Russia over Ukraine in 2025 (per The New York Times and The Atlantic), he’s consistent. Contrast that with his attacks on NATO, calling it “obsolete,” or his digs at allies like Canada and Germany. Putin gets a pass; allies don’t. That’s not random.

 

What’s the counterargument? Trump’s defenders say he’s just a businessman chasing deals, not a puppet. Sanctions on Russia during his term—like those after the Skripal poisoning—suggest he wasn’t always soft. His unpredictability could argue against him being a controlled asset; Putin might prefer someone steadier. And without leaked tapes or documents, it’s all circumstantial—greed, naivety, or admiration for strongmen could explain it too.

 

Weighing it all, the historical ties, financial entanglements, and campaign contacts build a strong case—say, a 60% base likelihood. His failure to ever criticize Putin, despite ample chances (Crimea, Ukraine, hacks), bumps it higher; that’s not normal for a U.S. president, especially one so quick to blast others. Call it 15-20% more. The 2025 policy shift toward Russia, sidelining Ukraine and NATO, adds another 5-10%. But the lack of definitive proof—classified docs or a whistleblower—keeps it from 100%.

 

I estimate a 75-85% likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties. The remaining 15-25% accounts for uncertainty and plausible alternatives like naivety or coincidence. It’s not a sure thing, but the odds feel uncomfortably high given the stakes.