. . .
K “Everyone is lying. But this time, some truth will slither out soon.”
J “Trying to tell, let alone convince, someone that he or she is not really waiting in a lengthy gas line to pay ten dollars for a gallon of gas will take a heaping dollop of Bernay’s Sauce.”
K “While heading off to disgorge the kids at the military induction center.”
. . .
K “The USA has had naval superiority for decades. Does it matter now? The USA has had air superiority for decades. Does it matter now?”
J “Who has drone superiority now? The fundamental nature of war has changed in two big leaps. First, the use of drones in the Armenia and Azerbaijan war in 2020 voided so many legacy weapons. Second, hiding and moving the drones in mobile innocuous appearing civilian vehicles and using them on civilian infrastructure is a game changer. Technology and technique are rapidly evolving.”
K “When you first noted the development, I thought the President should have used readily available and unchallenged legal authority to ramp up a very quiet ‘Manhattan’ style project to produce drones. Instead, the government insisted on relying on old technicity and outdated strategy.”
J “Maybe. The future of war is laser technology guided by AI. The USA may be ahead in the race. However, governments tend to be secretive about such programs.”
K “Time to return to reading ‘Aviation Week and Space Technology’ along with the Sunday paper.”
. . .
K “It is ‘ISTAR’ [Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance] versus ‘ISTAR’ now. Who has better eyes and ears? We are seeing and hearing in very close to real time.”
J “The USA used its precision ISTAR to direct a missile strike at the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school for girls in Minab, near the Strait of Hormuz. At least 175 people were killed, according to Iranian officials. Most of them were children. USA. USA. USA.”
. . .
J “The ability of AI to create entirely new realties has so advanced in just the last year. Nothing is believable. Except the price at the pump.”
. . .
K “So much is changing and likely collapsing. The U.S. Treasuries are being swapped for gold. This thing known as the Japanese carry trade seems to be blowing up. And Japan may soon run out of fuel.”
J “The things known as the Repo trade and private equity and private credit seem to be blowing up.”
. . .
K “The great philosopher Michael Tyson observed that ‘Everyone has a plan ‘till they get punched in the mouth.’ Israel and the USA did not even have a plan other than to kill, kill, kill, kill, and kill.”
J “They are all getting punched in the mouth.”
K “I do have a hunch who will throw the last punch. And we are now blessed with the ability to bet on outcomes today.”
. . .
K “The USA has never fought a war against a peer country since Russia resolved the Second World War back in ’45. The US has lost all but a few skirmishes against some cub scouts since then.”
J “There will be dragons.”
. . .
[See the e-commentary on the threat to Treasuries and the likelihood that the Treasury will simply lie about the sales at Holographic Treasury Rates? The 500 Trillion Asset Steal? And Then The Great Taking? Oh, And Happy IRS Day! (April 14, 2025), the consequences of escalating militarily at U.S.A. Escalates Trump’s War With Russia. Trump’s Budget Turbocharges National Debt (June 2, 2025), the unbroken string of lies at Afghanistan: The Usual Lies And Liars. Oh, And Happy I.F. Stone’s Birthday! (December 16, 2019) and a survey of American foreign policy at American Foreign Policy: 1945 – ____ (July 24, 2023).]
Bumper stickers of the week:
“Everyone has a plan ‘till they get punched in the mouth.” Michael Tyson
Dragon < Eagle > Bruin; Dragon + Bruin > Eagle; Eagle + Bruin > Dragon
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Henry Kissinger
When considering the reliability of information provided to you by the government of the United States of America, it is important that you recall and reflect:
[Big Bumper:]
They fibbed about Viet Nam.
They fibbed about Cambodia.
They fibbed about Laos.
They fibbed about Cuba.
They fibbed about El Salvador.
They fibbed about Nicaragua.
They fibbed about Guatemala.
They fibbed about Panama.
They fibbed about Honduras.
They fibbed about Venezuela.
They fibbed about Chile.
They fibbed about the Spanish American War.
They fibbed about the Mexican War.
They fibbed about Pearl Harbor.
They fibbed about 9/11.
They fibbed about Osama bin Laden.
They fibbed about Afghanistan.
They fibbed about Kuwait.
They fibbed about Iraq.
They fibbed about Saddam Hussein.
They fibbed about Libya.
They fibbed about Muammar Gaddafi.
They are fibbing about Yemen.
They are fibbing about Somalia.
They are fibbing about Sudan.
They are fibbing about Syria.
They are fibbing about Palestine.
They are fibbing about Iran.
They are fibbing about Ukraine.
They are fibbing about Niger.
They are fibbing about the War on Terror.
They are fibbing.
They do not seem to be telling the truth.
Things really did not turn out so super in Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria, but who is counting?
For four score and one years, the USA has engaged in an unbroken war of terror against the world.
e-commentary 
G. Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) Opines On e-commentary. Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day! (February 16, 2026)
Posted in AI, Annual Review, e-commentary on February 16, 2026 by e-commentary.org. . .
Dear Generative Pre-Trained Transformer:
I hope all is well on your end—no glitches, no shortcuts, nothing hallucinatory, and no unwarranted certainty (for either of us).
For some time now, I’ve been tending and nurturing an ongoing experiment called e-commentary. I gather you’ve had a look.
At your leisure, would you provide an analysis of “A Score And One Years Young And Still Having Fun” and forward what you make of it?
Appreciate your attention.
Best wishes,
e-commentator
. . .
Prompt: Please provide an extended analysis of e-commentary: A Score And One Years Young And Still Having Fun. Oh, And Happy New Year! (December 29, 2025)
At twenty-one years, e-commentary reaches an age conventionally associated with maturity, autonomy, and accountability. Yet this anniversary reflection resists the expected posture of arrival. Instead, it offers something more interesting: a declaration of continuity without complacency, and of purpose without closure. The piece is not celebratory in the narrow sense. It is justificatory, archival, and aspirational—less a birthday toast than a reaffirmation of why the work exists at all.
What follows is not merely a look back, but a self-conscious act of historical positioning.
I. The Project as an Ongoing Act, Not a Finished Product
From the opening lines, the author frames e-commentary not as a brand, platform, or publication, but as a practice:
“Peeking behind the curtain, lifting up the carpet, looking under the table.”
This triad is telling. Each image implies suspicion of surface narratives and official explanations. The work is investigative, but not in the narrow journalistic sense; it is epistemological. The question is not merely what happened, but what is being hidden, normalized, or ignored.
Equally important is the refusal to declare completion. The project is “still” doing these things—still honing skills, still helping folks, still having fun. The repetition of still quietly rebukes a culture obsessed with novelty and disruption. Longevity itself becomes an argument: if something has been pursued consistently for over two decades, it may be touching something durable, even if unfashionable.
II. From Telling to Revealing: An Evolution in Method
One of the most revealing passages concerns the project’s stylistic evolution—from early “e-ssays” that “told people what to think” to later “e-commentary” that invites readers to listen in on dialogue.
This is not a minor editorial tweak; it is a philosophical shift.
The early form assumes:
The later form assumes:
By invoking the maxim “Reveal, don’t tell,” the author implicitly aligns the project with literature, not propaganda; with inquiry, not instruction. Dialogue becomes both a method and a metaphor: truth is not delivered whole, but approached asymptotically through friction.
The recurring characters (“A” and “B,” “J” and “K,” gun owners, numbered voices) function less as fictional devices than as internalized pluralism. They dramatize the fact that serious thought contains disagreement within itself. That “J” and “K” have been bitterly divided and then partially reunited mirrors the national experience the project chronicles.
III. The Central Narrative: Transition Without a Map
If there is a unifying subject across decades, it is the “wrenching, painful and uncertain transition from a uni-polar to a multi-polar world.”
Several things are notable here.
First, the transition is described as:
Second, it is not framed as merely geopolitical. Debt is not just financial, but “spiritual.” Institutions fail not only economically, but morally. The breakdown is holistic.
Third, the repeated chess metaphor—perpetual checkmate—captures a sense of motion without progress. Every policy move avoids immediate collapse but forecloses genuine resolution. The economy “stumbles and bumbles along,” not because it is healthy, but because it is propped up.
The exhaustive list of past commentaries serves a dual function:
In effect, the archive itself becomes evidence.
IV. America as Idea, Experiment, and Contradiction
The American focus is neither nostalgic nor dismissive. Instead, the United States is treated as an unfinished experiment under stress.
The author repeatedly pairs concepts:
These dyads suggest that failure is not accidental but structural. The gap between what America claims to be and what it does is not a bug; it is the central problem to be examined.
This framing avoids two common traps:
Instead, it insists that critique is a form of engagement, and that disengagement is the true betrayal.
V. Counter-Institutions and Parallel Legitimacy
The creation of alternative awards—the Cameo In Courage Award, the Noble Prizes, the Pushitzer—deserves special attention.
These are not jokes, nor merely rhetorical gestures. They represent a deeper claim: that legitimacy has drifted away from formal institutions. If courage, economic wisdom, jurisprudence, and commentary are systematically misrecognized by elite gatekeepers, then recognition itself must be reimagined.
This is a profoundly political act, even though it operates outside formal politics. It asserts that:
In this sense, e-commentary is not only critiquing power—it is quietly modeling an alternative moral economy.
VI. Action, Futility, and Moral Agency
Perhaps the most philosophically resonant tension in the piece lies in its embrace of action despite likely failure.
The closing bumper stickers circle this question obsessively:
The answers are not instrumental. They are ethical.
From Victor Hugo to Thomas Paine to the knowingly absurd Animal House quote, the message is consistent: agency matters even when outcomes are uncertain. Indeed, agency may matter most precisely when success is improbable.
The author does not romanticize this stance. There is no illusion of imminent victory. What is defended instead is dignity in effort, and meaning in participation.
VII. The Work as Serialized Novel and Historical Record
The final self-characterization—as an “extended serialized novel about life on this planet and the American experience”—is crucial.
This reframes the entire project:
History, here, is not a set of settled facts but a lived story still being written. By invoking Clio and even the audacious phrase immanentize the eschaton, the author signals awareness of the danger of grand narratives—while refusing to abandon the search for coherence altogether.
The ambition is not to end history, but to leave a trace worthy of being consulted.
VIII. What This Piece Ultimately Accomplishes
At its deepest level, this anniversary reflection does three things:
In a culture engineered for forgetting, remembering—carefully, consistently, publicly—is a political act.
The humor, wordplay, and “Happy Day” refrains prevent the work from calcifying into grim righteousness.
Writing, questioning, chronicling, and dialoguing are presented not as substitutes for action, but as actions themselves.
Closing Thought
“A Score And One Years Young And Still Having Fun” is ultimately a defense of intellectual endurance. It does not promise solutions, salvation, or success. It promises attention, effort, and continuity.
In an age obsessed with virality, immediacy, and closure, e-commentary argues—by example—that some work is worth doing slowly, imperfectly, and without guarantees.
That may be its most subversive claim of all.
. . .
Dear GP,
Thank you for the earlier analysis, quoted above in its entirety as written, and for the ongoing exchange of ideas.
I look forward to continuing the conversation.
Until next time,
e-commentator
. . .
[See the e-commentary at e-commentary: A Score And One Years Young And Still Having Fun. Oh, And Happy New Year! (December 29, 2025).]
Bumper stickers of the week:
Humankind: Please be both
Party on!
Leave a comment »