. . .
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:
- urgency
- clarity
- a deficit of understanding that must be corrected
The later form assumes:
- complexity
- plurality
- the reader as an active participant rather than a passive recipient
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:
- ongoing
- systemic
- historically unprecedented in scale
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:
- It documents consistency of concern (this is not trend-chasing).
- It indicts the broader culture for its short memory.
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:
- theory / practice
- promise / performance
- aspirations / aftermath
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:
- reflexive patriotism
- fashionable cynicism
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:
- values precede institutions
- institutions can decay
- judgment can be decentralized
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:
- Why act if success is unlikely?
- Why speak if one is not heard?
- Why resist if the system absorbs resistance?
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:
- not as opinion writing
- not as commentary in the narrow sense
- but as narrative continuity
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:
- It asserts memory as resistance
In a culture engineered for forgetting, remembering—carefully, consistently, publicly—is a political act.
- It defends seriousness without sanctimony
The humor, wordplay, and “Happy Day” refrains prevent the work from calcifying into grim righteousness.
- It affirms thinking as a form of doing
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
. . .
Bumper stickers of the week:
Humankind: Please be both
Party on!
This entry was posted on February 16, 2026 at 12:14 pm and is filed under AI, Annual Review, e-commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
e-commentary 
G. Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) Opines On e-commentary. Oh, And Happy Presidents’ Day! (February 16, 2026)
. . .
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!
Share this:
Related
This entry was posted on February 16, 2026 at 12:14 pm and is filed under AI, Annual Review, e-commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.