Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Trump’s Birthday Parade and Stopping the End Run

Yes, this is photoshopped.
But it wouldnt be funny if it werent close to the truth.
Curmie’s father played football in high school.  One of his favorite stories of that time nearly a century ago was about the end of the big rivalry game.  His team was down by four points as time was running out.  They did get the ball back, though, so they weren’t out of the game yet, even if they needed a touchdown and had 80 yards or so to get to the endzone.

That’s when the coach told them to run an end run, with Curmie’s dad and his cousin as the lead blockers, on literally every play until the other team stopped them for less than four yards.  A dozen or so plays later, they scored what turned out to be the winning touchdown with about a minute left on the clock.  If a play works, use it again.

Almost exactly five years ago, on Juneteenth, 2020—we’re talking peak COVID time—President Trump held a rally in Tulsa.  As usual, he crowed about the huge number of ticket requests… but the actual turnout left two thirds of the seats empty.  How did that happen?  Well, it was a combination: utter incompetence by whatever staffers were assigned front-of-house duties, and a bit of fun from Tik-Tok Teens and K-Pop Stans, who apparently ordered hundreds of thousands of free tickets they never had any intention of using. 

Curmie wrote about the story at the time.  Of course, having actually done some house management, Curmie also enumerated several different ways of preventing embarrassing situations like this.  Always the educator, is Curmie.  But Curmie had always been blessed by students who could out-think a kumquat.  Not so, this time.

By now, Gentle Reader, you’ve figured out what this essay is about—the paltry turnout for Trump’s most recent vanity project, that absurd parade—and what those first two paragraphs were about: the TikTok-ers are baaaaaaack, using precisely the same scheme as they’d used in Tulsa.

Curmie doesn’t approve of the subterfuge, but he does chuckle at the apparent inability of Trump to hire anyone whose name isn’t Stormy Daniels who is even remotely competent at their job.  Folks who say they’re from Canada or Australia or wherever claim to have gone online and ordered multiple tickets, some of them under crude or ironic names.  Oops, they couldn’t go.  Some of the confessions may be fake, and one might suspect that inclement weather may have affected turnout to some degree, but there is no question that the parade was not merely costly and boring, but also under-attended. 

Exact numbers for the turnout are impossible, of course, but Barbara Comstock posted that Newsmax, which makes Fox News look like leftist propaganda (that’s Curmie’s description, not hers), estimated about 10,000 attendees; she then added that the parade was “a huge waste of our military $$$ when the world is on fire…”  Curmie tried but failed to confirm Newsmax’s reporting, but Comstock is a former Republican Congresscritter, so she’d be unlikely to misrepresent the right-wing press. 

The place was damned near empty.  Asmodeus Naggoob posted on X that “AOC and Bernie would draw more people with thumb wrestling alone, lol.”  Part of that is, no doubt, attributable to… erm… running the same play until the other guys stop it.

But apparently the organizers’ incompetence stretched well beyond their amply demonstrated inability to learn anything from the Tulsa debacle.  Amanda Moore posted, “The marketing material said the entrance was on 14, but in reality it was on 12 St and you had to go through this pen for two blocks. Everyone who was around to answer questions was an asshole, too. Probably part of the issue!”  There are a host of other comments about poor planning and lack of crowd management.  Starting early to avoid thunderstorms also complicated things: it’s understandable and indeed appropriate in terms of safety, but problematic logistically because apparently some people didn’t make it through the barricades until the parade was over. 

That may have worked out OK for the prospective parade-goers, as the event itself was apparently a world-class snoozefest.  Numerous photos and videos show Trump and most of the people around him nodding off or nearly doing so. 

But let’s get one thing straight about that parade.  No one objects to recognizing the manifold contributions the Army and the other branches of the military have made to this country’s welfare, and having a celebration on the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Continental Army seems an entirely appropriate time to do so.  We might not approve of everything the military has done, but that is almost never the fault of the troops themselves.  And there are still some vets out there who were on the front lines against actual Nazis: anyone who disrespects them will have Curmie to deal with. 

The ceremonies planned by the Biden administration were pretty much what the occasion called for, but, being pathologically incapable of doing otherwise, Trump turned the event into a vulgar, expensive (estimates just to repair damage to the streets from running tanks over them run to $12,000,000), narcissistic display that was one part cheap theme park and two parts North Korea.  This wasn’t a celebration of the anniversary that happened to fall on Trump’s birthday; it was a birthday celebration of Trump that used a coincidence to pretend it wasn’t really a tacky glorification of Dear Leader.  

It was in recognition of what was about to happen in DC that the day was chosen for the nation-wide “No Kings” protests, which organizers say attracted over 13 million participants.  Curmie is not so naïve that he believes that number without a raised eyebrow, but even the most conservative estimates put the turnout at or near eight figures.  The ratio of protesters to parade-goers is probably somewhere around 1000:1.

Part of that is because the Trump administration couldn’t stop the end run.  In either sense of the term.

Sunday, June 15, 2025

Euripides Was a Keen Observer of Life in the Trump Regime

Euripides (480-406 BCE)
Curmie has been thinking about Euripides of late.  He’s spent an entire career as a theatre historian; forgive him, please.  This page attracts a pretty intelligent and well-educated readership, if Curmie does say so himself.  Still, the chances are that few readers of this piece know much about Euripides except that he was the fifth-century BCE Athenian tragedian who wrote Medea.  A handful of you will know The Trojan Women or The Bacchae.  Beyond those three plays, however, if you’re not someone specifically interested in classics or theatre history, you’re likely to be a little out of your element.

That, of course, is fine.  There are plenty of topics about which Curmie has a superficial understanding but you, Gentle Reader, are an authority.  That’s the way complex cultures and economies work.  So please allow Curmie to discuss three of Euripides’ lesser-known plays—Electra, Orestes, and Iphigenia in Aulis—and attempt to relate them to current events. 

All three of these tragedies are about the story of the House of Atreus.  Here are the basics of the story.  Helen (subsequently “of Troy”) was the most beautiful woman in all of Greece, and she attracted more suitors than you could shake the proverbial stick at.  Her father, Tyndareos, the king of Sparta, made the radical determination that rather than arrange a marriage of political convenience for his daughter, he would allow her to choose her own husband.  All of the suitors were required to swear on their honor that should Helen be abducted, they would immediately join forces to return her to the husband she chose.  She chooses Menelaus, from the royal family of Mycenae, over his older brother Agamemnon, the great warrior Achilles, and others.  Agamemnon subsequently marries Helen’s sister, Clytemnestra.  

And we jump ahead a few years, at which time the Trojan prince Paris shows up on the scene and takes Helen back to his homeland; sources differ as to whether Helen was abducted or whether she went voluntarily.  In any case, Agamemnon leads the military operation designed to bring Helen back to Greece and to Menelaus.

On their way to Troy, the expedition stops at the port town of Aulis.  Unfortunately, one of Agamemnon’s men kills a deer that was sacred to the goddess Artemis.  Goddesses don’t take such affronts lightly, and it soon becomes clear that the expedition will be unable to leave Aulis unless Agamemnon sacrifices his own daughter, Iphigenia.  But, Gentle Reader, you’ve already figured out that one way or another Iphigenia is going to end up in Aulis for there to be a play title like that.

After considerable soul-searching and a couple of changes of direction, Agamemnon sends a message to Clytemnestra to bring Iphigenia to Aulis, where she will supposedly marry the heroic Achilles.  When the mother and daughter arrive, they are made aware of the real reason they were summoned, and it isn’t for a wedding.  And then there’s a scene with Achilles.  He’s outraged, of course, but not for any kind of noble or even empathetic reason.  He’s mad because he wasn’t consulted!  He might have gone along with the ruse, you see, but now he is “nothing and nobody in the eyes of the army chiefs.” 

A couple minutes later, he’s afraid of “foolish scandal,” but, perhaps realizing he’s coming as a colossal dickhead (whatever the Greek word for that might be), he produces a bit of braggadocio: “Oh may I die if I mock you in this / And only live if I shall save the girl.”  Needless to say, he’s alive at the end of the play, having capitulated to the demands of the rest of the army.  Iphigenia, of course, is sent to the sacrificial altar.  (There’s a version of the ending by which Iphigenia is miraculously swept away by the gods and replaced by a deer, but that’s likely a later emendation, and even if she indeed saved, it has nothing to do with Achilles.)

Perhaps, Gentle Reader, you might know of, say, a political leader who thinks of nothing but himself while pretending to be a caring and heroic leader, who makes tough guy promises he cannot or will not keep, and who has a tendency to back down when someone calls his bluff.  Hypothetically speaking, of course.  But, as they say in the late-night infomercials, “Wait, that’s not all!”  Between Achilles’ promise to defend Iphigenia and his craven betrayal of her, there’s a choral ode.

The chorus, young women of nearby Calchis, who have been fan-girling over the Greek fleet, especially the hunky Achilles (well, I gotta admit that’s one way the parallel gets more than a little strained) through the earlier parts of the play, have just heard Achilles’ claim that he will defend Iphigenia and “be on watch—like a sentinel.” And their ode?  Well, here’s a sampling: “But you, Iphigenia, upon your head / And on your lovely hair / Will the Argives wreathe a crown / For sacrifice. / You will be brought down from the caves / Like a heifer, red, white, unblemished, / And like a bloody victim / They will slash your throat.” 

Iphigenia is going to die.  Those chorus lasses aren’t buying Achilles’ bullshit.  Sort of like the most recent polling data from Quinnipiac suggests about that other guy, who is underwater in literally every area.  The only difference is that the chorus figured out in minutes what it took middle-of-the-road voters months to realize.  Oh, of course there are the true believers, who, like Iphigenia herself, make excuses for the cowardly pseudo-hero.  Iphigenia willingly sacrifices her life to defeat her nation’s enemies.  Today’s pale imitations are willing to endure financial hardship and loss of liberties because their blustering idol hates the same people they do.

Let’s jump ahead in the story line.  The Greeks do indeed go to Troy, and after a decade of combat, they win through the stratagem of the Trojan horse.  Clytemnestra, meanwhile, has never forgiven Agamemnon for the sacrifice of Iphigenia.  She starts shacking up with Agamemnon’s cousin (and mortal enemy… long story), Aegisthus.  When Agamemnon returns home from Troy, they kill him within minutes of his arrival.

And now we jump ahead again.  Orestes, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra’s young son, has been smuggled out of the palace by a loyal tutor and raised in the household of the king of Phocis.  Electra, Orestes’s sister, was married off to a peasant farmer in Euripides’ Electra (she was held captive in the palace in other versions), presumably so any offspring would be less than noble.  The play is set outside her humble abode.

This turns out to be extremely important.  This is the only story line for which we have complete or nearly complete versions by all three of the great Athenian tragedians.  All three, of course, tell the tale of Orestes and Electra exacting vengeance on Clytemnestra and Aegisthus in their father’s name.  There are differences in detail: which sibling is the protagonist, which of the victims dies first, and so on.  But the setting seems to be the most important difference in Euripides’ play. 

The opening speech is given to the peasant, who assures the audience that he recognizes Electra’s nobility and has therefore not had sex with her despite their marriage.  But Clytemnestra is summoned to attend her daughter while Electra gives birth.  Clytemnestra has hardly been an admirable parent, but tradition demands that she attend the birth of her grandchild.  In other words, she unknowingly places herself in danger by doing the right thing

If, Gentle Reader, you’re seeing a parallel to what’s happening today, you’re not alone.  Immigrants are showing up to routine hearings about routine renewals of work permits, or asylum hearings, or even meetings for what they believed would be a final step towards citizenship, only to be arrested by ICE, or DHS, or the SS, or whatever other craven assholes with assault rifles happened to be handy.  They’re doing the right thing, and that is what leads to their detainment.  True, their fate isn’t quite as bad as Clytemnestra’s—not immediately, at least.  But their crimes are a lot less severe, too, and many are getting precisely the same amount of due process that she got: none.

Sure, some of those folks are probably not the best of human beings, but if that “man or bear” meme from last year were re-formulated as “ICE agent or ‘illegal alien,’” Curmie is trusting the latter ten times out of ten.  Be it noted: recent protests against ICE-induced violence, agents’ anonymity, and denial of due process isn’t “in favor of illegal aliens” or some other bullshit, any more than sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza is anti-Semitic, or supporting our most vulnerable populations is communistic (in fact, it’s a helluva lot more Christian than literally anyone in the MAGA crowd).

But revenons à nos moutons: however righteous they might believe their cause to be, Electra and Orestes are, in Euripides’ play, pretty horrible people.  And Clytemnestra, for all her faults, is still the victim here. 

And so we move on through the story line.  In the best-known version of the aftermath of the killings of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, Aeschylus’s Eumenides, Orestes is hounded by the Furies, who view matricide as the worst of all possible crimes.  Ultimately, he is tried in Athens with Apollo as what amounts to his defense attorney.  The vote of the Areopagus is even, but the goddess Athena casts the deciding vote for mercy, while also showing respect for the Furies and urging them to bless the city.

Euripides takes us in a totally different direction in Orestes.  Orestes, his comrade Pylades, and Electra have captured Hermione, Helen’s daughter, and are holding her a sword-point atop a building.  (There’s a lot of other stuff happening, too, but this is the relevant part.)  All three of the captors are pretty well deranged at this point.  Tyndareos and Menelaus threaten the trio, and there’s no way everyone gets out of this alive… until Apollo shows up to make everything all right (including having Orestes marry his cousin Hermione) in the most deus ex machina ending in the history of deus ex machina endings.

Curmie has written about this one before.  Here’s what he said a couple of years ago:
... the deus ex machina (literally!) ending to Euripides’ Orestes has been decried by many critics as faulty dramaturgy because it is so utterly implausible. But was one of the great classical tragedians really that sloppy? Or is it just possible that we’re supposed to notice the awkwardness, that the most famous atheist of his era might just be suggesting that it’s unreasonable to expect the gods to fix our problems, that the best way out of a difficult situation is not to get into it in the first place?
And now we’re at the “I didn’t vote for this” wails of “Latinos for Trump” and similar folks who thought he only hated the people they hated, too.  Actually, you did vote for this.  You voted for a convicted felon, an adjudicated sexual predator, a narcissist who sought to overthrow an election because he didn’t like the result.  He ran on a platform of white male supremacy and Christian nationalism.  These are simply facts.

And let’s dispense with the quibbles: “those prosecutions were politically motivated” (perhaps, but the verdicts weren’t); “there shouldn’t have been 34 different counts” (so being guilty of fewer felonies is OK?); “he wasn’t convicted of rape; it was a civil trial” (seriously, that’s your argument?); “he didn’t incite the January 6 hooligans” (well, he did, but that’s an interpretation; what is objectively true is that he could have prevented it or at least lessened the damage but did nothing).  Yawn.

Unfortunately, too many voters stayed home, or were (justifiably) mad at the Democrats for covering up Biden’s mental infirmity and installing about as bad a candidate as one could imagine, all without the rank and file, or even convention delegates, having any choice in the matter.  Curmie doesn’t completely discount the idea that Elon Musk or his minions hacked voting machines, but it seems unlikely.  In other words, currently disillusioned Trump voters could have stopped this if they’d bothered to pay attention.  On the one hand, they should be applauded for figuring things out, even if it too long.  But it’s difficult to work up too much empathy for the willfully ignorant.

So: TACO could also be an acronym for Today Achilles Chickens Out, and the women of Calchis catch on a lot sooner than today’s ex-MAGAs did.  Clytemnestra would have lived a lot longer had she not—this once, at least—played by the rules.  Apollo isn’t going to show up and solve all our problems; we’ve got to make good decisions early on to prevent disaster.

Euripides nailed it.

Note: Curmie spent over an hour formatting this piece because Blogger kept screwing up.  Getting thr text to justify never really happened without causing a different problem.  If he missed something else, he apologizes.

Sunday, June 8, 2025

A Defense of Marjorie Taylor Greene. Sort Of.

 

A big bill that actually is beautiful.
Curmie wouldn’t make you look at MTG, Gentle Reader.

A little over 15 years ago, in one of the first entries on this blog, Curmie wrote this about Sarah Palin: “I think she’s reckless, amoral, self-important, and proud of her own staggering ignorance: and that’s a very nasty combination. She seeks the spotlight more than Jesse Jackson, and she’s not above being incendiary for its own sake. And… this time… she’s being attacked unfairly.”

The specific topic was an ad featuring what appeared to be gunsights on Congressional districts represented by Democrats who voted for the ACA but which the McCain/Palin ticket had carried in the ’08 presidential election.  There was a follow-up tweet with the line “don’t retreat… re-load.”  The usual leftie suspects accused her of inciting violence for using the same kind of rhetoric pols and pundits had employed for decades (at least). 

But the sights were on the districts, not the incumbent politicians.  (It is sad but coincidental that one of the Congresscritters named on the poster was Gabby Giffords, who was indeed shot a few months later by a gunman not exactly playing with a full deck.)  Curmie presented what amounted to a “stopped clock” defense of Palin.

Skip ahead a decade and a half.  The 2020s version of Palin is Marjorie Taylor Greene, she of “Jewish space lasers” fame (yes, Curmie knows that was not a direct quote, but it’s close enough) and who more recently suggested that Pope Francis’s death was an example of “Evil… being defeated by the hand of God.”  Like Palin, she’s shrill, bigoted, desperate for attention, dumber than the proverbial stack of burnt toast, and just generally the kind of person we hope our kids grow up not to be.  But, like Palin 15 years ago, she’s being slammed unfairly.  Well, sort of unfairly.

This all stems from an MTG tweet (or whatever they’re called now) in which she admits that she hadn’t read the section of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” that strips states of their ability to regulate AI, and that she would have voted against the bill had she known of that language.  The stopped clock phenomenon has seldom been so pronounced. 

MTG’s declaration is particularly significant this time around, because if she had actually done so, the House wouldn’t have passed the bill.  (Or an idea so stupid that even MTG recognizes how dumb it is would have been excised… or… well, you get the idea, Gentle Reader.) 

She writes that “We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states’ hands is potentially dangerous.”  (Curmie added that apostrophe, hoping its omission was a typo.)  She’s right, of course.  Curmie searches in vain for anything positive to say about the BBB, but this section is, perhaps, even more odious than the reverse Robin Hood stuff. 

Curmie is no fan of taking money out of the hands of the most vulnerable among us to give a huge tax break to billionaires.  Even the most conservative (in both senses of that term) estimates suggest that even after accounting for perhaps illusory economic growth, we’re talking about a 10-year dynamic deficit increase of 1.72 trillion dollars.  (The CBO says $2.4 trillion.)

But let’s go with the “smaller” number: $1,720,000,000,000.  (That’s a lot of zeroes.)  People struggle to understand how big a number that is.  The median household income in the country in 2024 was $80,020.  Spend that much money every minute of every day, and it will take almost 41 years to get to $1.72 trillion.  And Curmie has yet to see a rationale, even a spurious one, for the obscene tax breaks for people who don’t come close to needing one.

There is literally no excuse for the Republican budget… but at least it’s a budget.  When They Make Me Tsar™, anyone introducing anything into a budget bill that isn’t about budget will be horse-whipped.  If it’s something as awful as capitulating to the techbros or interfering with courts’ ability to hold government officials in contempt, it will also include kneecapping.  (Note: the holding-in-contempt bit isn’t as bad as the leftie commentariat would have us believe—go figure, right?—but it’s bad enough.)

But revenons à nos moutons.  Of course, the lefties pounced on Greene’s confession.  Among those leading the charge was Rep. Eric Swalwell, who responded to Greene’s tweet with the following endearment: “You have one job. To. Read. The. Fucking. Bill.”  You remember Swalwell, don’t you, Gentle Reader?  The partisan hack (yes, the Dems have them, too) who was accused a few years ago of having a romantic/sexual relationship with an alleged Chinese spy? 

Swalwell’s fellow California Democrat Ted Lieu chimed in with “I read the AI provision, that’s one reason I voted no on the GOP’s big, ugly bill. Also, ICYMI, the bill also has the largest cut to healthcare in U.S. history. PRO TIP: It’s helpful to read stuff before voting on it.” 

Damned near every left-leaning pundit joined the party.  Curmie counted five different articles just on HuffPost. (He’s not going to link them; you can get there on your own, Gentle Reader.)   Were they right to try to humiliate MTG?  Yes.  And no.

First off, Curmie has got 20 bucks that says that both Swalwell and Lieu have voted on bills they haven’t read in their entirety, and they probably voted for a bill they didn’t read all the way through.  The distinction here is that if there’s something on page 6 that’s so horrible you couldn’t possibly vote for the bill, you can stop reading, at least until there’s an amendment to cut the offending provision.  But if you’re tempted to vote for a bill, you’ve got to read the whole thing, lest there be something on, say, pages 278-79 (to pick page numbers completely at random, of course) that would make you change your mind.

Second, the BBB is over 1100 pages long.  True, that’s with big fonts and lots of white space, but even someone who reads pretty quickly would still take over a day to read the whole thing with any care.

Third, MTG is being pummeled for doing the right thing.  In this case, it’s admitting a mistake and trying to fix the damage.  But it’s easy to expand that concept into, say, going to a check-in with immigration officials only to be walking into a trap.  Curmie hopes to follow up on this idea in a future post.

Fourth, and this may be the most important point: it’s easy to miss things.  Curmie’s Beloved Spouse works in the financial aid office of a university.  She reports that her professional organization, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, only recently (apparently after the House vote) noticed that the BBB eliminates subsidized student loans, meaning that students would start paying interest on loans the second the ink is dry instead of upon graduation.  The NASFAA folks aren’t incompetent; they just missed it.

This kind of thing happens all the time.  Curmie just finished a draft of an article he hopes to publish in a theatre studies journal.  His argument centers on his belief that in quoting one sentence of an unpublished document, two rightfully well-respected scholars erred in failing to recognize the significance of the succeeding two sentences, thereby leaping to a conclusion unproven by the facts. 

Finally, where were the Democrats and the allegedly leftie press?  Curmie knew that no argument would sway his own spineless and dim-witted Congresscritter from prostrating himself at the feet of Dear Leader, so he relied on news and opinion pieces rather than poring over the bill himself.  He did, however, read dozens of stories about the BBB.  And when did he become aware of this particular obscene provision?  When Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote about it.  Congressman Lieu has indeed been an advocate of regulating AI, but Curmie can find no references to his objections to this part of the BBB until after MTG’s tweet. 

To be fair, there were some articles published prior to the House vote, such as this one from the AP.  But Democratic leaders certainly didn’t make much noise about this provision, and Republicans went out of their way to avoid talking about the bill at all, especially after the evisceration of a few of their number by constituents at town halls.  Was Curmie’s ignorance about the AI proposal until MTG’s reversal excusable?  Perhaps not, but it’s certainly explainable.

If you are reading the blog, Gentle Reader, you are likely to believe that one of the few times Elon Musk has told the truth in this calendar year was in describing the BBB as an “disgusting abomination.” Anyone who voted for the BBB or will do so in the future is at least one, and probably more than one, of the following: an idiot, a sociopath, or a coward.  This person should be removed from office (legally, non-violently) as soon as possible.  That certainly includes Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is perhaps the dimmest bulb in the less-than-brilliant Congressional firmament. 

Yes, she was apparently fine with all the other intentionally cruel, fiscally irresponsible, and authoritarian aspects of the proposed legislation.  She is indeed a strong contender for the less-than-coveted title of America’s Most Embarrassing Legislator (Curmie almost said “Politician,” but the Executive branch has that title sewn up for the near term).  But admitting her error and probably getting one of the worst parts of an overall awful bill cut doesn’t warrant this level of vitriol.

Saturday, June 7, 2025

Elon Musk, by ChatGPT, in the Style of Curmie

Curmie has two almost-finished essays that just need another few minutes of work, but he can’t seem to push either of them over the finish line.  So he figured he’d just follow the crowd and, you know, Gentle Reader, cheat.  Well, he’s telling you that he’s cheating, so that makes it a little better, one supposes.

A few days ago, one of Curmie’s friends posted something on Facebook about how much better those AI sites are at, well, virtually everything than they were even a year ago.  He posted something that had been written by AI but read a whole lot like my friend’s voice.  It all made Curmie rather glad he’s re-retired and doesn’t have to try to figure out if students are actually doing the work or just feeding the assignment into a chatbot and waiting 15 seconds.

It also made Curmie curious.  Are these sites as good (or as terrifying, as the case may be) as his friend suggests?  Yes, there are serious problems of ethics and accuracy (AI has a marked tendency to make shit up), but how advanced is the language feature?  Time for a little experiment.  Curmie went to ChatGPT and asked for an essay on Elon Musk in the style of one of his own blog posts: the one on that profoundly insecure group chat about an imminent military mission.  Here’s the result.

Elon Musk: The World’s Richest Troll

Let’s get something straight right off the bat: trying to keep up with Elon Musk’s antics is like trying to staple Jell-O to a ceiling fan. Every time you think you’ve seen peak Musk, he one-ups himself with a half-baked meme, a bizarre business decision, or a tweet (excuse me, X-post) about how humanity will be living on Mars by 2032, despite the fact that he can’t seem to get Teslas to stop spontaneously combusting in mall parking lots.

At this point, one has to wonder: is Musk a genius playing 4D chess while the rest of us are still figuring out checkers, or is he a chaotic tech-bro who stumbled into a fortune and now spends his time cosplaying as a Bond villain with a Twitter account? Curmie (yeah, let’s go ahead and borrow that name—it fits the vibe) leans toward the latter.

We know that Musk bought Twitter for a frankly ridiculous $44 billion—because when you have that kind of cash lying around, why not purchase a dumpster fire and pour gasoline on it? Since then, he’s fired half the staff, alienated advertisers, and rebranded the platform as “X,” a name so meaningless it makes “Meta” sound like a stroke of branding genius. There’s also the small matter of boosting free speech while banning journalists and any account that dares to track his private jet. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

But Musk’s incompetence (or indifference, or megalomania—it’s honestly hard to tell anymore) isn’t confined to social media. There’s SpaceX, which admittedly has done some cool stuff, like launching a car into space for no practical reason whatsoever. And then there’s Tesla, a company so riddled with quality-control issues it’s basically the tech world’s answer to the Ford Pinto, only with autopilot.

Speaking of autopilot: fun fact, it isn’t one. You’d think that minor detail would be clear in the user manual, or at least in the ads, but apparently it’s up to the driver to guess when the car will decide to aim for a median at 80 mph. But hey, it’s electric, so at least you’ll die sustainably.

And let’s not forget Musk’s hobby of making sweeping promises about brain chips, hyperloops, and underground traffic tunnels that totally aren’t going to become a claustrophobic hellscape when someone inevitably breaks down inside one. Curmie remembers the good old days when tech moguls stuck to overpriced software and left the sci-fi megalomania to movies starring Jeff Goldblum.

The thing is, Musk has so thoroughly convinced a segment of the population that he’s the savior of humanity that they’ll gleefully pay for a blue checkmark, defend his honor in Reddit threads, and pretend that Dogecoin isn’t a joke that got out of hand. Meanwhile, the actual adults in the room—engineers, regulators, and people with working frontal lobes—are left to clean up the wreckage of his impulsive decisions.

In the end, whether Elon Musk is a misunderstood visionary or just a rich guy playing SimCity with the global economy is irrelevant. What matters is that he’s driving the bus, it’s on fire, and he’s live-tweeting the whole thing. Buckle up.

Um… wow.  Yes, Curmie would enjoy having a beer with this particular AI manifestation.  But we’re already pretty much in “I’m sorry, Dave.  I’m afraid I can’t do that” territory.  Curmie will, however, continue to write (and think) for himself.  And all future Curmie posts will be written by… Curmie.

In the words of Ionesco’s Bérenger, “Je ne capitule pas.”