IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE or Mykel's June 2026 Blog/Column

 

You’re STILL Wrong

or
Mykel's

JUNE 2026 Blog/Column
by Mykel Board

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

It suddenly occurred to me that not one person who has successfully committed suicide has lived to regret it.

-1-Mykel Board

Alcohol is a social lubricant that brings people together. It allows people an excuse to bond and socialize, and there’s probably nothing healthier than having a good time with friends in a safe way.

– Dr. Mehmet Oz

The latest research shows that alcohol is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco,”
– World Health Organization-1

Unlike burgers, processed foods such as hot dogs are classified as a Group 1 carcinogens. Consuming the artificial compounds found in most hot dogs can increase cancer risk. The same can be said for char-grilled burgers, which contain more carcinogens than burgers cooked on a frying pan on top of the stove. But the level of carcinogenic substances in burgers is far less than in hot dogs.
--World Health Organization-2

So drinking alcohol is as carcinogenic as eating hot dogs.
-2 – Mykel Board

I lie naked on the operating table. I’m in that state halfway between sleep and fully aware. I feel some sort of restraints on wrists and ankles. Each seems to be attached to a different corner of the table.

I squint my eyes open and focus on a couple of surgeons. One of the doctors smiles paternally.

“You’re doing the right thing, Mykel.” He says to me, reaching between my legs. “Those glands have helped destroy the world. And they’ve encouraged sex. You know that science has proved that sex causes so many diseases. Every case of syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis and most cases of AIDS and herpes are caused by sex. This operation will set you free. You’ll never have to worry about the dangers of sex, because you’ll never again have sex. You’ll be neutered and alive.”

Of course it’s correct to say that a person who doesn’t have sex will not contract an STD. Just as my quote at the beginning of this blog is correct in saying no successful suicide has lived to regret it.

But it is NOT logical to say that suicide CAUSES lack of regret any more than it’s logical to say that castration CAUSES the elimination of STDs.

I’m challenging the idea of cause and effect. Saying alcohol causes cancer, like saying sex causes STDs, is just wrong… or at best, misleading. One thing does not cause something else. Things happen for a combination of reasons… mostly too many to count. Something as simple as being shot with a gun caused him to die is just wrong.

How many people have been shot with a gun and DIDN’T die? How much does it count what kind of gun, where the bullet hit? If it was, in fact, a bullet and not a BB? How soon did our victim get treatment? And on and on. Hundreds of things have to happen in order for there to be an effect. The so-called effect is a combination of happenings and conditions –not the result of one thing causing another one thing.

I’ve written before of my hatred of science. Of how it’s wrong and how it never admits to being wrong… Though it completely changes its mind… it never says “we made a mistake.”

Science-based rules on alcohol are a great example of the failure of science. It was science that said two glasses of wine a day… especially red wine… was actually healthy. That wine provided your body with elements that improve brain and heart function and likely help control cholesterol.

Flash forward to the 2020’s. ANY alcohol is bad for you. Science says so. It’s just like x-rays and asbestos. “If you drink alcohol you will die!” say the health experts. Yet alcohol is and has been a part of every culture (except Muslim and Mormon) on earth. And the sharing of the liquid has likely SAVED more people than it’s harmed. Check out the quote from Dr. Oz at the start of this blog.

Science defies logic. And the reason is the myth of cause and effect. The reason for X is that it’s caused by Y. That’s wrong! The public urge to BLAME is the fault of the myth of cause and effect. And that myth has really nasty consequences.

A prisoner is released and commits a crime. He’s been in and out of prison. What’s the reaction? The cause and effect?

“It’s a revolving door! He should have more time in prison... not be let out. Freedom from jail CAUSES crime.”

BULLSHIT!

How can people even think that way? Lawbreakers are in prison. How does a longer time being surrounded by other lawbreakers make you less likely to be one? Logic should win this debate… NOT cause and effect.

You take someone who has pickpocketed a neighbor once. Throw him in jail with rapists, murderers and career thieves. What do you expect? He’s going to get some lessons in rape, murder and more efficient thievery. More prison time RESULTS in crime. It’s logical. Don’t give me statistics that prove different. Use your brain.

FLASH TO PRAGUE… 1972: (I’ve written about this before.) I’m 22 years old and am riding through Eastern Europe on a Dutch moped. Now that I’m here in Czechoslovakia, I want to visit one of my literary heroes: Franz Kafka. Yeah he’s dead, but I figure I can find his grave. I do.

As I stand in front of the grave, enjoying the irony of finding Franz buried with his dad, Hermann. (Kafka hated his father.) An older woman stops, looks at me and at the grave. She turns to me.

“Are you Israeli?” she asks.

“No,” I answer, “I’m not.”

“You are Jewish? Right?” she asks.

“That I am,” I answer.

“Well, I have a daughter…”

FLASH TO DINNER: The older woman has invited me to meet her daughter, a slightly chubby, somewhat sexy blonde. Her name is Tereza. We’re talking about religion.

“I’m an atheist,” says Tereza. “I know you’re a Jew. But I don’t understand how you can believe in God. If he lives in the clouds, he’d just step out and fall down. Any God would just fall down to earth.”

FLASH TO FACEBOOK IN RECENT TIMES: I post... asking my atheist friends to describe the God they don’t believe in.

The answers come back. “I don’t believe. How can I describe something that I don’t believe in?”

“I don’t believe in dogs,” I reply. “I can perfectly describe the dogs I don’t believe in perfectly: They’re about 10 feet tall and have six legs. They’re very furry… except for the tail. That is bare skin... marine green in color.”

“That’s not a dog,” comes the answer.

“It’s a dog I don’t believe in,” I reply.

Get it? If you don’t believe in something, you need to be able to describe it. Tereza’s old man who lives in the clouds is a perfect God not to believe in. She has an image and can describe it.

An atheist who can’t (or won’t) describe the God he doesn’t believe in, doesn’t know what belief is. His non-belief is not logical. How can you not believe in something if you can’t say what it is that you don’t believe in?

When I say I don’t believe in cause and effect the way science does, I define cause and effect as one thing or action that is directly –and usually immediately– responsible for the existence of another thing or action.

The Hiroshima atom bomb CAUSED the death of more than 140,000 people. The EFFECT of the smallpox vaccine was to completely eliminate smallpox.

Those are cause and effects I believe in. My objection isn’t the complete irrelevance of cause and effect. My objection is the seeking of cause and effect in EVERYTHING. Yes, certain combinations of things makes results more likely. The presence of alcohol, for example, makes unprotected sex more likely. And unprotected sex makes pregnancy more likely. But alcohol does not CAUSE pregnancy.

So it’s really not the concept of cause and affect that bothers me so much as it is the seeking of cause and effect where it doesn't belong... the illogic of trying to find a cause… or effect... where there is neither... and the further mistaking of cause for effect.

Imagine a pool table with bricks on it. The pool players take turns snapping a cue against a ball, only to have the ball bounce uselessly off the nearest brick. I’m a researcher, a scientist, studying the effects of bricks on billiards. To test my theory of cause and effect, I remove the bricks from the table and let the game restart. Pow! Five times as many balls go into the pockets as when the bricks are present. I have just proved that removing bricks from a pool table improves the performance of pool players.

From then on, I carry a bag of bricks with me to pool bars. Before my turn, I spread the bricks on the table… and then remove them. It’s cause and effect. I should have a high score. Removing bricks from a pool table guarantees a high score. NO IT DOESN'T. I tried it. It doesn’t work. It’s not logical.

Take warning labels… please. The Journal of The American Medical Association found that warning labels on cigarettes had NO EFFECT on the amount of cigarettes smoked. Lung cancer has decreased since the introduction of warning labels, but that decrease was mostly due to earlier detection and better treatment… NOT warning-label discouragement. Putting warning labels on cigarette packs is like putting brinks on pool tables… then removing them before you play. It does nothing.

Now the World Health Organization, in the name of science, is demanding that warnings be put on all alcohol, At the same time, they say alcohol is no more dangerous than hot dogs. In the past, science has urged two glasses of red wine a day for better health. Science had also, in the past, urged margarine to replace butter. More recent findings say there’s greater danger in polyunsaturates (can you say margarine) than in butter. Science was wrong! Wrong about margarine and wrong about alcohol.

Science may be the greatest villain in the cause and effects war, but it’s not the only one. As I write this, TV news reports that every candidate endorsed by Donald Trump has won the Republican primary. This is supposed to prove the EFFECT of a Trump endorsement. It’s not logical.

Picture this: there’s an election between Otto Kentrol and Jello Biafra for induction to the punkrock hall of fame. Otto is pissed off at me because I back Biafra. Biafra wins. Did I do it? If I back the person most likely to win, can I claim any credit for them winning? Did I CAUSE him to win?

Of course not! There is no cause and effect here. I haven’t proved my power by showing I can pick a winner in a contest where the winner is obvious. It’s the same in politics and music and life in general. It’s time to stop looking for causes and use logic and common sense to find solutions… not effects.

See you in hell,
MB

ENDNOTES: [You can contact me on facebook or by email at mykelboard@gmail.com. Through the post office: send those... er...  DVDs..or music or zines... or anything else (legal only!) to: Mykel Board, POB 137, New York, NY 10012-0003. If you like my writing, you can be notified when anything new is available. Send me an email with SUBSCRIBE TO THE BLOG in the subject line. Back blogs and columns are at https://mykelsblog.blogspot.com]

→ Web MD proves my point dept: On their website is a nice description of how alcohol is good for you. So before you put a health warning label on your can of Smuttynose, consider some facts… use logic… not stupid cause and effects.

→Cause and effect… whoops dept: Scientists in 1988 found that facial expressions have the potential to influence our moods: the more people smile, the happier they will be, and vice versa. In a last-century experiment, researchers asked participants to read The Far Side comics by artist Gary Larson, with either a pen held between their teeth (forcing a smile) or between their lips (replicating a pout). Results found that people who smiled reported the comics to be funnier than those made to pout. Researchers concluded that changing a facial expression can change mood, and termed this phenomenon the facial feedback hypothesis. But when another team of researchers at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands conducted the same experiment, using the identical comics, the results failed to replicate "in a statistically compelling fashion". Evidently, the cause and effect relationship of smiling to feeling was wrong. You can read about this and other science mistakes at: Science Correcting Itself

→ A shitty story: This story is from my long-time pal Sid Yiddish. Evidently it’s true, and as with many such stories, is more fun in the telling than in the reality. You can read it here. Thanks Sid!

See you in hell
redux
MB

LINKS

New Links:

I’m happy to present the art of Sarah Thobe… who paints personalities as part of her portraits. Check her out at https://sarathobe.com/.

And it was great to hear from my very long-time friend, Fred Lonberg-Holm. Celloman extraordinaire. You can hear him at https://fredlonberg-holm.bandcamp.com/album/the-return-of

Anthony Allen Begnal asked me to mention his Hardcore Conversation You Tube channel, and I’m happy to do so here.

Longtime scene/zinester Robb Roemershauser has restarted the Above Ground Zine Library. The Zine library doesn’t yet have an address at the location but, fell free to donate zines that you no longer want to the Aboveground Zine Library 2100 Sawmill Road Apt. 22-202, New Orleans, LA 70123. The Zine library will be located in the upper 9th ward on a busy street.

And the regulars:

My pal Matt Sheahan says: You can link to my website - www.matthewsheahan.com or my Substack - https://politenewyorker.substack.com/ . Matt is a great musician and very funny guy.

My Kenyan pal, Albert Melody shares a facebook adventure in one of those great Kenyan national parks. Guess who he shared the adventure with!!! You can read about it here. Albert also has a blog at: Albertomelody.blogspot.com

Teddy Labato has a “lo-fi noise” link to his band Check it out.

It’s About Time dept: Finally, a book about Hungarian Punk  put out by Puke and Vomit records.   Great scene there and I was glad to have contact with bands like Der Trottel and Tizedesz. Glad to have been a (very small) part of that scene. 

Here are some other contacts to make:

Teddy Lobato’s band can be found at https://www.facebook.com/THEBASSMANsPSYCHEDELICNOISE

Karl De Winton sent me a link to his bandcamp DJ stuff. https://share.google/5sTnXjgMkFbiWQvzA 
NSFW… but that depends on your job. 

Dan Hetrick asked me “How 'bout us punk rawk programmers?”
And offers http://merk.chat Free chat for the people!

I’ve talked about Bob Cutler before. But he has more to offer than DYSTOPEKA
https://chrometuna.com/  and https://theklusterfux.com

Riot Division makes its musical offering at: https://www.facebook.com/riotdivision

Barstool Revolution Zine is on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/people/Barstool-Revolution-Zine/61557909822199/

Rina Borei shows off her inflatable Octopus on Instagram: @oona.frost

Jim Testa, a long-time friend, journalist, editor, musician and wordsmith, has an interesting substack about music and more. You can find it here.

Sid Yiddish sent me this link to all his videos. It’s a great place to start, especially if you don’t know him. 

I did a nice interview with The Aither zine. Interesting questions, complete, and questions I’ve never been asked before. You can read it here. It’s a good one. 

Here’s Ricardo Wang with a “micro-label” in Seattle “specializing in 8-track tapes and CDs. WOW! Check out one of their label staples: The Dead Air Fresheners, best band name of the year. 

Also on bandcamp: My very long time faves in NYC, the BLACKOUT SHOPPERS. Featuring pals Seth and possibly the next vice-president of the US

Sid Yiddish has posted a video of a show done for WZRD in Chicago. Great live performances, and if you catch the video around the 20+ minute point you might see a familiar face doing the lyrics to his songs (some unrecorded) as poetry. You’ll find it here.  

And this sounds right up Sid’s alley. The Bilderberg Jazz Arkestra on Bandcamp!

Eric Grayson has an online music review zine, Sobriquet. Full pictures of the sleeves too! Something missing from too many zines. Sometimes you CAN judge a… er… book… by its cover. 

Steen Thomsen is a Dane I’ve known ever since Lincoln was shot. I put his band THE ZERO POINT on the great WORLD CLASS PUNK Cassette for ROIR. It must be worth a mint now. I don’t have any left, I’m afraid. You can (and should) connect to the Zero Point on facebook. Tell ‘em Mykel’s blog sent you. 

Sorry Dorothy, we are STILL in Kansas. And it’s as weird as OZ. Check out Bob Cutler’s DISTOPEKA. 

You already know Murder & Mayhem zine… those guys who did the Mykel Board centerfold. (No genitals shown… and probably for the better.) Their online version is here. 

The Clean Boys from Denmark are also longtime friends of mine. In Denmark we recorded as The Bend-over Boys.  Only one 10-inch available… but at least now I can say I have a 10-incher! 

Finally, for this month, Margaret O’Brien asked me to include the site: anti-war.com They seem to be folks after my own heart. I’m glad they didn’t call it “anti-defense.”

Oh yeah, then there’s me. I have a blog of stuff I’ve written mostly from last century. You might enjoy it. Then again, you might not. It’s here. 

Let me know if you have a blog… or a print zine… or a YouTube and want to be added to the list. You show me yours… you’ve already seen mine. mykelboard@gmail.com

SPECIAL POST... my pal Kyle N. fed me to AI This

 Hi! My friend Kyle N. fed my current blog entry to AI and then asked it to tell him about ME! This is what he got back:

AI ON MB

Critical Analysis of Mykel Board’s March 2026 Blog Column: “The Year of the Whores”

Introduction

In March 2026, Mykel Board—a veteran punk columnist, provocateur, and satirist—published a blog column titled “The Year of the Whores.” The piece, appearing amid a fraught American political season and in the wake of new revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files, is a dense, layered work that blends scatological humor, biting satire, and cultural critique. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of Board’s column, examining its themes, tone, rhetorical strategies, and cultural commentary. Special attention is given to the column’s use of satire, its blending of fiction and reality, and its invocation of figures such as Jeffrey Epstein, Mark Twain, and Noam Chomsky. The analysis situates the column within both its immediate historical context and the broader tradition of American satirical writing, exploring how Board’s work critiques media sensationalism, moral panic, and American attitudes toward sex, power, and scandal.

I. Author Background and Editorial Stance

Mykel Board: Biography and Oeuvre

Mykel Board, born in 1950 in Long Island, New York, is a writer, musician, and long-standing figure in the American punk and underground scenes. Board’s career spans decades, with his most prominent work being his column in Maximum Rocknroll, as well as numerous books, essays, and blog posts. His writing is characterized by a blend of irreverence, intellectual playfulness, and a penchant for challenging social taboos.

Board’s editorial stance is rooted in skepticism toward authority, a distrust of mainstream narratives, and a commitment to exposing hypocrisy—especially around issues of sex, power, and cultural norms. His columns often employ grotesque humor, scatological imagery, and a self-consciously unreliable narrative voice. Board’s background in punk culture informs his approach: he values subversion, directness, and a willingness to offend in the service of critique.

B. Recent Columns and Recurring Themes (Feb–Mar 2026)

In the months leading up to “The Year of the Whores,” Board’s blog columns have repeatedly interrogated the nature of truth, the proliferation of lies in media and politics, and the erosion of trust in institutions. His February 2026 column, “THAT’S NOT TRUE!,” for example, explores the death of truth in the age of artificial intelligence and media manipulation, using bodily metaphors and fictionalized anecdotes to blur the line between fact and fabrication.

Recurring themes in Board’s recent work include:

The unreliability of media and the constructed nature of news.

The social function of lying and the limits of “truth-telling.”

The grotesque and the scatological as metaphors for cultural decay.

The critique of moral panics, especially those centered on sex and scandal.

The interplay between sincerity and irony in public discourse.

These themes set the stage for the March 2026 column, which synthesizes Board’s ongoing concerns with a timely focus on the Epstein files and the American obsession with sexual scandal.

II. Immediate Historical and Political Context (March 2026)

A. The 2026 Political Landscape

March 2026 finds the United States in the midst of a contentious midterm election cycle, with early primaries in Arkansas and North Carolina setting the tone for national political debates. The political climate is marked by heightened polarization, ongoing debates about government transparency, and a series of high-profile scandals involving public figures.

B. The Epstein Files and Public Revelations

The release of the Epstein files by the Department of Justice in late 2025 and early 2026 has reignited public fascination with the intersections of sex, power, and elite networks. The files include emails, financial records, and correspondence implicating a wide array of figures, including former President Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and, to the shock of many, the leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky.

The media’s coverage of these revelations has been characterized by sensational headlines, speculation, and a focus on salacious details—often at the expense of nuance or context. The public reaction has included both outrage and fatigue, with some commentators decrying the “tabloidization” of political discourse.

C. Cultural Flashpoints: Sex, Scandal, and Stigma

The broader cultural context includes ongoing debates about sex work, the meaning of “whore” as a term of stigma, and the rise of platforms like OnlyFans, which have complicated traditional narratives about agency, exploitation, and respectability in sex work. The invocation of “The Year of the Whores” as a title is itself a play on a notorious BBC subtitle blunder from 2014, in which “Year of the Horse” was mistranslated as “Year of the Whores,” highlighting the persistent anxieties and taboos surrounding sexuality in public life.

III. Thematic Analysis of “The Year of the Whores”

A. Satire and the Critique of Moral Panic

At its core, Board’s column is a satirical meditation on the American tendency toward moral panic—especially around issues of sex and scandal. Drawing on the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” Board employs irony, hyperbole, and grotesque imagery to expose the absurdities of public discourse.

1. Satire as Critique and Entertainment

According to contemporary satire theory, satire is defined by its dual purpose: to critique and to entertain, with these functions necessarily interacting. Board’s column exemplifies this dynamic, using humor and shock to provoke critical reflection on the ways in which society constructs and responds to sexual “deviance.”

2. The Anatomy of a Moral Panic

Board’s invocation of the Epstein files and the ensuing media frenzy is a textbook example of what sociologist Stanley Cohen termed a “moral panic”—a process in which a group or behavior is exaggeratedly framed as a threat to societal values, leading to public outrage and calls for control. Board’s satirical lens reveals how the media, politicians, and “moral entrepreneurs” collaborate to manufacture and sustain such panics, often with little regard for proportionality or evidence.

3. The “Whore” as Folk Devil

By titling his column “The Year of the Whores,” Board foregrounds the role of the “whore” as a symbolic “folk devil”—a figure onto whom society projects its anxieties about morality, sexuality, and power. The term “whore” is both a literal reference to sex work and a metaphor for anyone deemed to have transgressed social norms, especially around sex.

B. Media Sensationalism and the Tabloidization of Scandal

Board’s column is deeply concerned with the ways in which media sensationalism distorts public understanding of sex, power, and scandal. He lampoons the “market-driven journalism” that prioritizes lurid headlines, personal attacks, and spectacle over substantive analysis.

1. The Mechanics of Sensationalism

Drawing on media studies scholarship, Board’s critique aligns with the view that sensationalism involves the over-hyping of events, the use of emotionally charged language, and the focus on personalities and private lives at the expense of broader social issues. The coverage of the Epstein files, with its emphasis on celebrity connections and salacious details, is a prime example.

2. The Erosion of Truth and the Rise of “Fake News”

Board’s satirical narrative blurs the line between fact and fiction, echoing his February 2026 column’s argument that “truth is dead” in the age of AI, deepfakes, and media manipulation. He mocks the idea that videos or documents are inherently trustworthy, highlighting the ease with which images and narratives can be fabricated or distorted.

3. The Audience’s Complicity

Board implicates the audience in the cycle of sensationalism, suggesting that the public’s appetite for scandal and spectacle drives the media’s choices. He likens sensational news to “junk food”—irresistible but ultimately empty, contributing to a culture of cynicism and distrust.

C. American Attitudes Toward Sex, Power, and Scandal

Board’s column is a sustained critique of American cultural attitudes toward sex, power, and scandal. He exposes the double standards, hypocrisies, and anxieties that shape public discourse.

1. The Stigma of Sex Work and the “Whorearchy”

Board’s use of the term “whore” is deliberately provocative, inviting reflection on the ways in which sex workers are stigmatized, marginalized, and denied agency. He references the concept of the “whorearchy”—the hierarchy of respectability within sex work, with online performers at the top and street-based workers at the bottom. Board’s satire challenges the notion that sex work is inherently dishonorable, highlighting the contradictions in how society values and polices sexuality.

2. The Politics of Scandal

By invoking figures like Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, and Noam Chomsky, Board situates his critique within the long history of American political sex scandals. He draws attention to the selective outrage and partisan uses of scandal, noting that accusations of sexual impropriety are often wielded as weapons in broader struggles for power.

3. The Language of Shame and Control

Board’s column interrogates the language used to describe sex, scandal, and deviance. He exposes how terms like “whore” function as tools of social control, marking certain individuals as unworthy or dangerous. He also highlights the ways in which laws and policies reinforce stigma, denying sex workers basic rights and protections.

IV. Rhetorical Strategies and Satirical Devices

A. Irony, Parody, and Hyperbole

Board’s column is a masterclass in the use of satirical rhetorical devices. He employs irony—saying the opposite of what he means—to expose contradictions and hypocrisies. Parody is used to mimic the style of news reports, political speeches, and moralistic commentary, subverting their authority. Hyperbole—deliberate exaggeration—serves to amplify the absurdities of public discourse.

1. Irony as Subversive Critique

Irony is central to Board’s approach. By presenting outrageous claims in a deadpan tone, he forces readers to question the sincerity and logic of mainstream narratives. This technique echoes the tradition of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” in which the proposal to eat Irish children is delivered with mock-seriousness to highlight the inhumanity of British policy.

2. Parody and the Mimicry of Authority

Board parodies the conventions of journalism and political rhetoric, adopting the language and structure of news reports only to undermine their credibility. This strategy draws attention to the constructed nature of media narratives and the ease with which authority can be feigned or subverted.

3. Hyperbole and the Grotesque

Exaggeration is used to both shock and amuse. Board’s scatological metaphors—comparing lies to excrement, for example—serve to debase the lofty pretensions of public discourse and to remind readers of the bodily realities that underlie social taboos.

B. The Blending of Fiction and Reality

A hallmark of Board’s column is its deliberate blurring of the boundaries between fiction and reality. He employs metafictional techniques, unreliable narration, and self-referential asides to destabilize the reader’s sense of what is “true”.

1. Metafiction and Self-Awareness

Board’s narrative voice is self-consciously aware of its own artifice. He frequently breaks the fourth wall, addressing the reader directly and commenting on the process of storytelling. This metafictional stance invites readers to reflect on the constructed nature of all narratives, including those presented as “news” or “fact”.

2. The Unreliable Narrator

Board adopts the persona of an unreliable narrator, admitting to embellishments, fabrications, and outright lies. This strategy both satirizes the unreliability of media and challenges the reader to engage critically with the text, rather than passively accepting its claims.

3. Fake-News Aesthetics

By mimicking the style and format of news reports, Board’s column participates in the aesthetics of “fake news”—a genre that both parodies and critiques the conventions of journalism. This approach underscores the difficulty of distinguishing truth from fiction in the contemporary media landscape.

C. Grotesque and Scatological Humor

Board’s use of grotesque and scatological humor is both a stylistic signature and a rhetorical strategy. By invoking the body, excrement, and taboo subjects, he disrupts the decorum of public discourse and exposes the underlying anxieties that shape cultural attitudes toward sex and scandal.

1. The Scatological as Satirical Weapon

The use of scatology in literature has a long tradition as a means of leveling social hierarchies, exposing hypocrisy, and provoking philosophical reflection. Board’s metaphors of “talking shit” and “power shits” serve to debase the pretensions of truth-telling and to highlight the excesses and absurdities of language itself.

2. Shock Tactics and the Limits of Decorum

By deliberately violating norms of taste and propriety, Board’s humor functions as a form of cultural critique. The shock value of his imagery forces readers to confront the realities that polite society prefers to ignore, especially around issues of sex, power, and bodily functions.

3. The Carnivalesque and the Leveling of Hierarchies

Drawing on Bakhtin’s concept of the carnivalesque, Board’s scatological humor serves to invert social hierarchies and to create a space in which the low and the high, the sacred and the profane, are brought into contact. This leveling effect is central to the column’s satirical project.

V. Intertextuality and Allusion: Epstein, Twain, and Chomsky

A. Jeffrey Epstein: Scandal, Files, and Symbolism

The figure of Jeffrey Epstein looms large in Board’s column, serving as both a literal subject and a symbol of the intersections between sex, power, and elite networks. The release of the Epstein files, with their revelations about the complicity of powerful men and the failures of institutions, provides a backdrop for Board’s critique.

1. The Function of the Epstein Reference

By invoking Epstein, Board taps into the collective anxieties and fascinations that the case has generated. Epstein becomes a symbol of the ways in which sexual deviance is both sensationalized and instrumentalized in public discourse, often to distract from deeper structural issues.

2. The Chomsky-Epstein Correspondence

The revelation of Noam Chomsky’s correspondence with Epstein is particularly significant, as it disrupts the binary between “good” and “bad” actors and complicates narratives of moral purity. Board uses this allusion to challenge the tendency to divide the world into heroes and villains, suggesting that complicity and ambiguity are endemic to systems of power.

B. Noam Chomsky: Intellectual Authority and Moral Ambiguity

Chomsky’s presence in the column serves multiple functions. As a symbol of intellectual authority and leftist critique, his association with Epstein is both shocking and revealing. Board uses this allusion to interrogate the limits of moral judgment and the dangers of hero-worship.

1. The Fallibility of Icons

By highlighting Chomsky’s correspondence with Epstein, Board exposes the fallibility of even the most revered figures. This move aligns with the satirical tradition of puncturing pretensions and challenging the sanctity of authority.

2. The Complexity of Complicity

Board’s treatment of Chomsky is nuanced, acknowledging both his contributions and his blind spots. The column suggests that the desire for clear-cut villains and heroes is itself a form of moral simplification, one that obscures the complexities of real-world power relations.

C. Mark Twain: Satirical Lineage and American Critique

The invocation of Mark Twain situates Board’s column within a long tradition of American satire. Twain’s work is characterized by humor, irony, and a relentless critique of social hypocrisy and human folly.

1. Twain’s Satirical Techniques

Twain’s use of exaggeration, irony, and the grotesque serves as a model for Board’s own rhetorical strategies. Both writers employ humor as a means of exposing the absurdities of social conventions and the contradictions of American culture.

2. The Relevance of Twain’s Critique

By referencing Twain, Board aligns himself with a tradition of satire that seeks not only to entertain but to provoke critical reflection and, potentially, social change. Twain’s observations about the preference for “polished lies” over uncomfortable truths resonate with Board’s critique of contemporary media and politics.

VI. Theoretical Frameworks: Satire, Moral Panic, and Media Critique

A. Satire Theory: Definitions and Functions

Satire is a protean genre, encompassing a range of forms and purposes. Contemporary theorists argue that satire is defined by its dual function: to critique and to entertain, with these purposes necessarily interacting.

1. Satire vs. Sincerity

The interplay between satire and sincerity is central to Board’s column. By adopting a tone that oscillates between earnestness and irony, Board forces readers to question the boundaries between critique and complicity, entertainment and moral judgment.

2. The Risks and Rewards of Satire

Satire is inherently risky, as it depends on the audience’s ability to recognize irony and to distinguish between literal and figurative meaning. Misinterpretation is always possible, especially in an age of fragmented media and polarized discourse.

B. Moral Panic Theory

The concept of moral panic, developed by Stanley Cohen and others, provides a useful lens for understanding Board’s critique of the Epstein scandal and its media coverage.

1. The Stages of Moral Panic

Moral panics follow a predictable pattern: identification of a threat, media amplification, public outrage, official response, and eventual decline. Board’s column satirizes each stage, exposing the ways in which moral entrepreneurs and the media collaborate to construct and sustain panics.

2. The Role of Folk Devils

The designation of “folk devils”—figures who embody the perceived threat—is central to the process of moral panic. Board’s use of the term “whore” highlights the ways in which certain individuals or groups are scapegoated and stigmatized in the service of social control.

C. Media Sensationalism and the Construction of Reality

Board’s column engages with theories of media framing, constructivism, and the social responsibility of journalism.

1. The Framing of Scandal

Media framing theory posits that the way news is presented shapes public understanding and response. Board’s parody of news conventions draws attention to the selective, constructed nature of media narratives.

2. The Ethics of Sensationalism

Board’s critique aligns with calls for a more socially responsible media, one that prioritizes accuracy, context, and ethical reflection over profit and spectacle. His satire exposes the dangers of a media environment in which entertainment and outrage trump substantive analysis.

VII. Audience Reception and Circulation

A. Readership Demographics and Punk Subculture

Board’s primary audience consists of readers attuned to punk, underground, and alternative cultures—communities that value skepticism, irreverence, and critical engagement with mainstream narratives. His use of in-group references, subcultural slang, and taboo-breaking humor is designed to resonate with readers who share his sensibilities.

B. Social Media Reaction and Public Debate

The circulation of Board’s column on social media platforms has generated a range of responses, from enthusiastic praise to confusion and outrage. The complexity of satire means that not all readers recognize or appreciate its ironic stance, leading to debates about the boundaries of acceptable critique and the risks of misinterpretation.

C. The Ethics and Legalities of Satirical Invocation

Board’s invocation of living and deceased public figures raises ethical and legal questions about the limits of satire. In the United States, satire is generally protected as free speech, especially when targeting public figures, but the line between protected parody and actionable defamation can be blurry. Board’s use of exaggeration, absurdity, and clear signals of fictionality helps to distinguish his work from defamatory statements, but the potential for controversy remains.

VIII. Comparative Models: Twain, Swift, and Contemporary Satirists

A. Mark Twain and the American Satirical Tradition

Board’s work is in direct conversation with the tradition of Mark Twain, whose satire combined humor, irony, and a relentless critique of American society. Twain’s observations about the preference for comforting lies, the dangers of moral hypocrisy, and the absurdities of political life find echoes in Board’s column.

B. Jonathan Swift and the Art of Shock

The influence of Jonathan Swift, especially “A Modest Proposal,” is evident in Board’s use of shock, irony, and hyperbole to provoke moral reflection. Like Swift, Board adopts a persona that appears to endorse the very attitudes he seeks to critique, forcing readers to confront the inhumanity of prevailing social norms.

C. Contemporary Satirists and the Digital Age

Board’s engagement with the aesthetics of “fake news,” deepfakes, and AI-generated content situates his work within the contemporary landscape of digital satire. Like The Onion, The Daily Show, and other modern satirists, Board uses parody and irony to challenge the authority of media and to expose the constructed nature of reality.

IX. Conclusion: The Broader Message of “The Year of the Whores”

Mykel Board’s “The Year of the Whores” is a complex, provocative, and deeply satirical meditation on the intersections of sex, power, scandal, and media in contemporary America. Through a blend of irony, parody, hyperbole, and grotesque humor, Board exposes the absurdities of moral panic, the hypocrisies of media sensationalism, and the contradictions of American attitudes toward sexuality and authority.

By invoking figures like Jeffrey Epstein, Noam Chomsky, and Mark Twain, Board situates his critique within both the immediate context of 2026 and the broader tradition of American satire. His column challenges readers to question the narratives they consume, to recognize the constructed nature of scandal and stigma, and to reflect on the deeper anxieties that drive public discourse.

Ultimately, “The Year of the Whores” is both a product and a critique of its time—a work that entertains, provokes, and unsettles in equal measure. It stands as a testament to the enduring power of satire to illuminate, to challenge, and, perhaps, to change the way we see ourselves and our society.

Appendix: Table—Key Satirical Devices in “The Year of the Whores”

Device Example in Board’s Column Function in Satire

Irony Deadpan endorsement of scandalous behavior Exposes contradictions, forces critical reflection

Parody Mimicry of news reports and political speeches Undermines authority, highlights constructed narratives

Hyperbole Exaggerated metaphors (e.g., “power shits”) Amplifies absurdities, provokes shock and amusement

Grotesque Scatological humor, bodily imagery Disrupts decorum, levels hierarchies

Metafiction Direct address to reader, self-aware narration Blurs fiction/reality, invites critical engagement

Allusion References to Epstein, Chomsky, Twain Situates critique within broader cultural context

Each of these devices is elaborated in the column to serve both the entertainment and critical functions of satire. Board’s mastery of these techniques situates him within a lineage of satirists who have used humor, shock, and irony to challenge the status quo and to provoke deeper reflection on the values and anxieties of their societies.

Final Thoughts

Mykel Board’s “The Year of the Whores” is a rich, multilayered work that rewards close reading and critical analysis. Its engagement with the themes of truth, scandal, stigma, and media manipulation is both timely and timeless, offering insights not only into the peculiarities of 2026 but into the enduring dynamics of American culture. By blending satire and sincerity, fiction and reality, Board invites readers to question not only the stories they are told but the very frameworks through which they make sense of the world. In doing so, he affirms the vital role of satire as both a mirror and a hammer—reflecting society’s follies and, perhaps, shaping its future.

=========================================

You can contact Kyle on facebook at: Kyle Nonneman