"The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed President Trump to continue construction of a luxury White House ballroom to replace the East Wing he demolished last fall."

The NYT reports.

In a one-sentence order, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., acting on his own, issued a place holder that gives all nine justices additional time to more fully consider whether construction of the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom can proceed. The chief justice’s order did not provide a timeline for when the court would act next, stating only that a lower-court ruling against the Trump administration was paused “pending further order of the undersigned or of the court.”

"I looked in his eyes. I can't picture his face... I didn't see the skin. When I think about him... all I see is these deep oceans of blue in these deep concerning eyes."

"And this like white light behind them. That's what I picture when I think about what did Bob Dylan look like to me. All I can see is these the deepest bluest eyes with the most concerning emotion in them and then this like aura of like white light. That's what Bob looks like to me in my memory. I can't remember his face...."

Said Billy Strings.

Theo Von: "It's almost something that's like almost like maybe from another realm or something. I think God, like God's concern, like shows up in our eyes, I think. So maybe he just has a lot of like concern from the other side, you know?"

Billy Strings: “Yeah. And it's it's not a paranoid concern. It's more of like a compassion and and a like like a love like from an elder, you know?”

Theo: “Yeah. Maybe like a kind of semi-aggressive intrigue kind of.”

Billy: “Like a some kind of musical grandpa, you know?”

Theo: “Yeah, dude. Bob Dylan, bro. Wow.”

I see my name invoked over at Instapundit.

It's on the old "men in shorts" topic. Something about women being able to wear "sundresses" to work. I think the term "sundresses" is being used to mean sleeveless dresses. An actual sundress wouldn't look any more professional than a man in shorts, but sleeveless dresses exist and might look okay in the office. But isn't the office air conditioned? I think women are more likely to put on a sweater than to want their bare arms exposed. 

Anyway, my classic men-in-shorts topic was about men looking like children. It all started back in 2006. It all started with something Tom Wolfe wrote in "I Am Charlotte Simmons" [commission earned]. "I was amused," I blogged, "to run across this description of a man wearing shorts":

All that elegance was what made the personage of Dr. Lewin seem so curious. Last week, when the class first met, he had worn a plaid cotton shirt and pants -- nothing remarkable about that. The shirt had had long sleeves, and the pants had been long pants. But this morning he had on a short-sleeved shirt that showed too much of his skinny, hairy arms, and denim shorts that showed too much of his gnarly, hairy legs. He looked for all the world like a seven-year-old who at the touch of a wand had become old, tall, bald on top, and hairy everywhere else, an ossified seven-year-old, a pair of eyeglasses with lenses thick as ice pushed up to the summit of his forehead -- unaccountably addressing thirty college students, at Dupont, no less.

That's my motivation. Trying to encourage you to eschew the look of an ossified 7-year-old. 

"Rachel Cusk... wasn’t planning on having this conversation about the novel, 'Life of M,' but other people have had a lot to say — about whether 'M' is actually Natalie Portman..."

"... and whether, by writing about an actor who so closely resembles a real celebrity, Cusk has committed some kind of artistic betrayal.... Cusk seems bewildered, and a bit distressed, to find herself caught in the harsh spotlight of fame and the kind of tabloid feeding frenzy she evokes in the novel, which features an author who writes about a famous actress."

From "How a Highbrow Novel Became Celebrity Gossip 'Life of M,' Rachel Cusk’s new book, has a protagonist with an uncanny resemblance to Natalie Portman. But in an interview, Cusk says she never expected it would cause such a frenzy" (NYT gift link).

Cusk says: "It’s very stressful, the thought of these things happening.... It’s taking the novel that I’ve created into almost a sort of courtroom or a factual fight.... What I’ve done belongs much more in a world in which fame, and these people who are so known and yet so unknown, is a part of contemporary consciousness....

"Robert Plant bakes a pie."

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Show Bits (@show_bits)

"I am using [the word 'scam'] more liberally than I think other people do. On purpose, because I think it’s funny."

Says Alex Falcone, who makes videos in a series called “Is It a Scam? Yep," quoted in "Alcohol. Manliness. Flushable Wipes. Since When Are These ‘Scams’?" (NYT gift link).

I like this expansion of the word. It is, as Falcone says, funny. 

Watch his videos on YouTube here.

Example:

ADDED: Once you start using the word "scam" this way, you quickly progress and will, I predict, get to "life itself" in less than 15 minutes. It's more light-hearted than calling everything "bullshit." It's reminiscent of Holden Caulfield calling everything "phony."

AND: There are quite a few things I've blogged about over the years that reflect an opinion that I could express with this broad use of the word scam — journalism, tourist travel, flying on a plane, manned space travel, the 2 major parties, calls for civility....

Steve Hilton, the GOP nominee for Governor of California, talks to Joe Rogan.

Joe and Hilton are old friends, and this discussion goes on for 3 hours, so this should be a major boost for Hilton. I'll just jump in at the point where they are talking about the waste of money on nonprofits that deal with homelessness:

Steve Hilton: This woman runs a homeless nonprofit, 1.6 million dollar salary. Homeless nonprofit.... There's another one...  2.6 million a year....

Joe Rogan: And here's the most important thing. The homelessness only got worse. Like if in the private sector, imagine if you were a CEO of a company that was just losing insane amounts of money and never completing its tasks, never doing the thing that it set out to do....

Steve Hilton: The more I look at it, the more insane it is. And everyone just looks at it and no one's ever pointed this stuff out.... The government just makes everything so expensive in California. Everyone says, oh, it's so expensive. What are we going to do? We'd better give them more welfare benefits... we better have a billionaire wealth tax.... They don't have that mentality of cutting costs like every normal business.... And this is what happens, I think, when you've got this one party rule thing that's been going on for 16 years now. They've run everything. They don't care because they think they'll be in power forever and it just doesn't matter....

"They were a success in Hollywood on one level. They brilliantly scammed some of the powers that be..."

"... and I never ceased to be amazed that very shrewd, extremely astute, hard-bitten, cynical executives are still blinded by celebrity. There was no proof from the beginning that these people knew how to produce material that people wanted to watch and yet they walked away with millions and millions of dollars. And on that level, they were a glowing success. On another level, which is return on investment, they failed abysmally."

Said Stephen Galloway, dean of the film school at Chapman University in California, quoted in "How Harry and Meghan ‘scammed’ Hollywood/The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are leaving California after deals with Netflix and Spotify failed, experts say. Is their brand dead?" (London Times).

Brilliantly scammed? What did they do that was brilliant? Maybe Galloway is a little scammed. He's proclaiming brilliance when all he is seeing are foolish executives falling for a man who inherited royalty. Or is Meghan brilliant — not brilliant at producing shows, but perhaps brilliant to see a way to bamboozle executives with royalty for a few years until the ludicrous inability to deliver the product became crushingly obvious?

Sunrise.

Talking crossword.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Roz Chast (@rozchast)

"If 'lore' is in part a word about treating fiction as a set of discoverable facts, it is also a word that imagines the hard facts of real life as part of a grand story...."

Writes Mitch Therleau, in "A Simple, One-Word Trick to Turn Everyday Life Into Grand Fantasy" (NYT gift link).

“Share a piece of lore about yourself,” goes one perennial prompt post on X.... The responses these kinds of posts elicit are not unlike the fun facts you might be prompted to share in an icebreaker activity.... Calling these unfun facts “lore” perhaps blunts the pain of the original experiences, rhetorically placing them in misty antiquity and sarcastically puffing them up into arcane secrets.... “Does your brand have lore?” asks Advertising Week... “Lore” is a hinge word, a threshold word. Fiction passes through it and becomes tangible fact; facts pass through it and become part of a grand story. Its ultimate trick is to make knowledge not embarrassing or useless, but a form of dark magic.

ADDED: This makes me think of the old Mothers of Invention song about becoming a hippie:

First I'll buy some beads
And then perhaps a leather band to go around my head
Some feathers and bells
And a book of Indian lore....

At the Coyote Café...

... you can talk your way through lunchtime.

"She won’t be here long"/"Next: H&M- the divorce"/"This is going to end in tears"/"My thoughts exactly. She does not want to be here. Lawyers will be circling...."

Various comments to be found at the London Times article, "Prince Harry and Meghan moving back to UK this month/Duke and Duchess of Sussex have enrolled Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet in a British school and are preparing to leave California."

"Unfortunately for [Jeff] Bezos and [Lauren] Sánchez, the very fact of their obscene wealth and fame may be keeping the gates of membership closed to them thus far."

"As the [Wall Street] Journal reported, 'As with many private country clubs, admission often comes down to hitting it off with existing members.... In fact, too much wealth or notoriety has become a deterrent, as wealthy new applicants arriving in Florida are learning.' In fact, 'old guard' members are apparently so turned off by what they see as 'billionaire interlopers' that they are said to be 'mounting a last stand' and refusing to 'offer membership to just anyone who has struck it rich.'... Bezos and Sánchez are not the only deep-pocketed duo living on the Miami island — known as the 'Billionaire Bunker' — who have yet to score an invite for membership. There’s also Mark Zuckerberg, who dropped $170 million on a waterfront estate last year; the Qatari royal family; and one Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump...."

From "Jeff Bezos, Javanka Have Yet to Score Invites to ‘Billionaire Bunker’ Club" (NY Magazine).

Well, this is an old old story, the story of old money socially shunning the newly rich. Those upstarts.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by lulu (@retrofilmglow)

"A few years ago, Charlotte, which is not her real name, was referred to the Select Date Society, which then offered services starting at $35,000..."

"... (due to high demand, the fee rose to $75,000 shortly after, with a top tier that started at $150,000). Charlotte, 38 at the time, worked for a successful business that had just gone public, so the money wasn’t a huge issue for her. 'No one I know would ever do this, I know that,' she says of her thinking at the time. 'But you know what? I could use some help, so I’m raising my hand here — I could use some help. And I’ll be honest, I’m lonely.' An M.B.A. with a blistering career trajectory that had taken her to companies like Goldman Sachs and Google, she was mainly occupied renovating a townhouse she’d recently purchased. She was in a position where, she says, 'I can use a friend. I can use someone who’s like my best friend.'..."

I'm reading "The Good-Man Shortage Has Gotten Exponentially Worse/The crisis is both a boon and a challenge for high-end matchmakers helping women find love" (NY Magazine).

"Look, I’d also be annoyed if touch of the ’tism TikTok were a regular feature of my offline conversations..."

"... but you’re right to laugh off your friends’ commentary if you can. It’s not worth wading into the quagmires awaiting you otherwise: conversations that assume and/or stigmatize a given condition’s symptoms and signs; declamations about the societal perils of self-diagnosing online, especially when it’s possible someone in your cohort has done exactly that; and any number of other headaches."

Writes the NY Magazine advice columnist, answering a letter in "My Friends Are Always Trying to Diagnose Me With Something!"