"'U r better at understanding Chinese women than at probability theory,' [Larry] Summers told [Jeffrey] Epstein."

"The two men bantered about probability and mathematics, but repeatedly steered the conversation back to Summers’ relationship. Epstein joked that 'the probability of you in bed again with peril was '0,' before reversing course and assuring Summers that 'she is never ever going to find another Larry summers. Probability ZERO.' Summers went on to describe what he saw as his 'best shot': that the woman finds him 'invaluable and interesting' and concludes 'she can’t have it without romance / sex.'... The final messages, dated July 5, 2019, show Summers still in regular contact with Epstein. That morning, Summers wrote he was in Cape Cod with his family — 'Bit of an Ibsen play,' he joked — and the two men exchanged a brief flurry of literary one-liners.... Epstein was arrested the next day."

I'm reading this in the Harvard Crimson: "As Summers Sought Clandestine Relationship With Woman He Called a Mentee, Epstein Was His 'Wing Man'/When former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers was pursuing a romantic relationship with a woman he described as a mentee, he turned to a longtime associate for guidance: convicted sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein."

1. "Peril" was the code name for the woman the 2 men were discussing. If the Crimson has correctly identified her, she was already a tenured professor — at the London School of Economics.

2. Stop and think about what Summers was saying when he wrote that his "best shot" for her to find him "invaluable and interesting" and to realize that "she can’t have it without romance / sex." I would interpret that to mean that he wanted sex (and romance) from her that he knew she didn't want. He just hoped she'd give it in order to receive professional and social benefits from him. No one should want sex that the other person does not want. It doesn't matter that you conceive of it as an even exchange because you are giving other benefits.

3. Imagine asking Jeffrey Epstein for advice on how to handle it!

4. I wonder how "peril" feels about all this — then and now. 

"Nobody got angry. You were angry at people that didn't want to get vaccinated and you didn't get angry at the person who used science..."

"... to create a horrible disease that was completely avoidable. And that killed who knows how many people. That didn't make you mad."

Said Joe Rogan, on his recent podcast with Adam Carolla.

Carolla: "Where's the anger over finding out that it was made in China at a lab... and then where's the anger over being forced or being vaxxed or all this misinformation being used?... I realized they don't want to say anything 'cause they're ashamed

Help me flesh out this idea for a self-help book.

The idea is that you reframe your problems/emotions/challenges/relationships as if they were a scene in a Broadway musical and find a way to sing the song (well, get AI to write the song and sing it for you). So, for example, you are brooding about growing old and not having achieved any of your real dreams, though others don't even notice you haven't, and you're left with this last shred of life and nothing in particular that you even want to do with it. You make that into a song. So, first, make the song for me. Second, outline a book that would be full of ideas like that.

***

It would be easy to promote, to write in parts, doing bits of songs on TikTok. But I'm not trained in Broadway singing or even talented in that kind of performance. I'd need to work with someone funny and charismatic and musically fantastic.

***

I just need a Broadway song about this idea and how, ultimately, I'm not going to do it. It's just another of my "unwritten books" — read about the rest here — and add that to the insanely long song.

"... House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax..."

"... perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown.' The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein,' are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.... Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can’t let that happen. Let’s... not fall into the Epstein “TRAP,” which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

So says Trump, over on Truth Social.

His post is the top story right now at the NYT and the Washington Post, which of course had to throw cold water on Trump's seeming enthusiasm for full exposure:

The NYT: "It was unclear how quickly Mr. Trump’s tightly controlled Justice Department might release files on Mr. Epstein, or whether the president’s seeming backing of the idea might speed such a release, regardless of the vote....." Seeming backing.... The NYT is reading this news as I read all news. Skeptically. Somebody says something, whether they mean it is another matter. Trump is playing a sophisticated (or chaotic) game. This is just one move.

WaPo highlights Chuck Schumer's reaction: "The vote is to compel YOU to release them. Let’s make this easier. Just release the files now." And: "Legal experts raised concerns over the weekend that Trump’s demand for a new investigation could give Justice Department officials an excuse not to release all the documents."

Sunrise — 6:32, 7:04, 7:04.

Write about whatever you like in the comments.

"Interesting legal questions aside, the trial took on a dadaist sheen, befitting the act itself."

"The juror told me that she and her fellow jurors used words like absurd, laughable, and waste of government money. 'We’re supposed to be looking at the evidence, but a clear majority felt it was nonsensical, like Don’t waste our time or money,' she said."

I'm reading "Inside the Sandwich Guy’s Jury Deliberations/Can a flung sandwich cause bodily harm?" (The Atlantic)(gift link).

"At one point, sandwiches were served for lunch, an irony not lost on a jury spending hours contemplating the many possible uses of the breaded form (nutrition, satiety, projectile). 'Then we had lots and lots of jokes about the condiments,' the juror told me...."

The word "nullification" does not appear in the article. "Ultimately, the juror said the group decided the case on its merits..."

"When we first came here, you could go anywhere, land your kayak anywhere, and you never gave it a thought."

"Now, there’s hardly a place you can land. There’s a feeling of sadness at losing something, a tradition of access, that maybe wasn’t written down but was understood."

Said Donald Campbell, "a retired New York City teacher who has spent 35 summers in a modest lakeside cabin near Burnt Jacket Mountain," quoted in "Mystery Fuels Unease in Maine Woods: Who Bought Burnt Jacket Mountain? An anonymous new owner fenced off beloved trails and put up surveillance cameras in a region with a long tradition of allowing public access on private land" (NYT)(free access).

There's also this, from Lew-Ellyn Hughes, "a manager at the Greenville tourism center whose family roots in the region go back 200 years": "These weren’t the only trails — they weren’t in the top 10 trails. That’s not why people are sad. It’s people from away coming in and shutting things down. It’s the contrast between haves and have-nots — especially when the have-nots can’t find a place to live."

"The San Franciscan has never lived a day outside of California, presents younger than 58 because of his hair and genes..."

"... and has endeared himself to his party rank-and-file by criticizing Democratic leaders for not fighting harder before leading by example to confront Donald Trump.... Newsom is also the best-positioned Democrat according to the new rules of politics — namely, whether you are or can become famous by breaking through on social media. Ask yourself: How many other potential candidates are plausible celebrities who can transcend the political-pop culture divide a la Obama and Trump?..."

I'm reading "Admit It. Gavin Newsom Is the 2028 Front-runner. For years, Democrats and pundits have rolled their eyes at Gavin Newsom. But he’s positioned better than anyone else for the future of politics" by Jonathan Martin, in Politico.

At one point, Martin observes, "Newsom sounded like he was reading the stage directions, a la Bush 41, saying: 'Message, I care.'" He said: "You’ve got to be on the other side of caution. It’s just clarity, conviction. Finding your voice, being your authentic self, just letting it rip, and taking the shit along the way."

I was surprised to read "presents younger than 58 because of his hair and genes" — I thought it was politically incorrect to mention genes.

AND: I'm reminded of the old theory that the man with the best hair wins. Remember this one:

"We've got better vision. We've got better ideas. We've got real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America. And we've got better hair. I'll tell you, that goes a long way."

The link goes to an old post of mine. You'll see the person who said "we've got better hair" went on to lose, and you'll see my contemporaneous statement that it was not good hair and that the only good hair was on the person who actually did win.

Sunrise at Lake Mendota, 6:48, and later, around 1:30, warm sun near Lake Wingra.

Write about whatever you want in the comments.

"At 3:00 a.m. on the morning of November 3, with the nation still anxiously waiting to learn who its next president would be, Garfield went to bed."

"When he woke up a few hours later and was told in no uncertain terms that he had won the election and was to be the twentieth president of the United States, he was, one reporter noted with astonishment, the 'coolest man in the room.' Later that day, Garfield gave his election to the presidency little more mention in his diary than he had the progress of his oat crop a few weeks earlier. 'The news of 3 a.m.,' he wrote, 'is fully justified by the morning papers.'  In the days that followed, surrounded by celebrations and frantic plans for his administration, Garfield could not shake the feeling that the presidency would bring him only loneliness and sorrow. As he watched everything he treasured—his time with his children, his books, and his farm—abruptly disappear, he understood that the life he had known was gone. The presidency seemed to him not a great accomplishment but a 'bleak mountain' that he was obliged to ascend. Sitting down at his desk in a rare moment to himself, he tried to explain in a letter to a friend the strange sense of loss he had felt since the election. 'There is a tone of sadness running through this triumph,' he wrote, 'which I can hardly explain.'"

I'm rereading "Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President" (commission earned) to go along with the Netflix series — "Death by Lightning" — that's based on the book.

Why change the title to something factually inaccurate? Garfield once said "Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; it is best not to worry about either."

The series is very visual, conveying information only impressionistically. Great sets, costumes, actorly finesse in the delivery of short emotional lines, but there is so much more going on in the book. That's just a typical book-is-better-than-the-film observation, not a rejection of the adaptation, which is excellent.

I'm interested in the Presidents who have not wanted to be President, who have felt bad about winning. I asked Grok to list them in the order of how much they did not want to have to do it and got this:

"Painting a historic building’s uncoated masonry can trap moisture, accelerate deterioration and cause it to crack or crumble...."

"That risk of permanent damage has led to preservation standards, including the Interior Department’s, to advise keeping a property’s historic appearance as unchanged as possible and caution against new paint schemes on historic masonry unless they replicate or closely match documented historic finishes, the complaint alleges. Paint could not be removed from the EEOB’s stone facade without risking its destruction...."

From "Preservationists sue Trump over plans to paint Eisenhower building/The complaint alleges Trump’s plan would ‘permanently alter one of the most architecturally significant and historic structures in the Nation’s Capital'" (WaPo).

He's the real estate guy. He should be able to explain why adding a layer of paint to an unpainted surface is good. Whether this lawsuit can or should succeed is a different matter. I just want to know why he thinks painting is good. I understand he wants the building to be white and not the gray that it is. I don't care one way or the other. I'm just troubled by the painting of surfaces that were designed to be unpainted.

ADDED: Trump shows his pictures to Laura Ingraham who seems quite disgusted. He's really into the intense whiteness of the imagined paint and condemns gray as a color "for funerals":

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Raymond Arroyo (@realraymondarroyo)

There are 3 groups where the majority approve of Trump — 2 are age groups and 1 is a racial group.

Rassmussen Reports this morning. I'll put it after the jump so you can enjoy puzzling and the surprise of being wrong about 2 of them... or maybe you won't be wrong now that I've nudged you to think twice:

"You are not ready for a woman!"

Michelle Obama says she's not making a run at the White House until the country grows up a bit. https://t.co/2f63yPvVFR

🎥: YouTube/michelleobama pic.twitter.com/RPQjmdh0bM

— TMZ (@TMZ) November 14, 2025

"Get out, drink more, and make a series of bad decisions that might pay off."

Earlier in that "Real Time" interview, not on that clip, Scott Galloway said, "We've unwittingly built an economy dependent on our ability to evolve a new species of asocial, asexual men. And what you have is Big Tech is trying to sequester people — especially young people, especially young men — from the most important thing in their life and that is relationships."

AND: Here's the "Overtime" part. Galloway brings out beers for the boys:

This topic reminds me of some thing I've quoted before — from Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals" — about the playwright Henrik Ibsen:

"The newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate show that the convicted sex offender texted with a Democratic member of Congress..."

"... during a congressional hearing with Michael Cohen, and that those text messages may have influenced the congresswoman’s questions of Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer. In the texts, Epstein appeared to be watching the February 2019 hearing in real time...."

From "Epstein texted with House Democrat during Cohen hearing, documents show/Newly released documents from the convicted sex offender’s estate include text messages from him that appear to influence the lawmaker’s questions to Trump’s personal attorney at a 2019 congressional hearing" (WaPo)(gift link).

The Democratic member of Congress is Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands figure importantly in the Epstein story. Epstein had owned 2 of the islands there, Great Saint James and Little Saint James. And, "according to a settlement in a lawsuit brought against Epstein’s estate by the U.S. Virgin Islands, 'many of his crimes occurred'" on Little Saint James. And: "A 2023 Business Insider investigation showed that Epstein donated large sums of money to U.S. Virgin Islands politicians, including to Plaskett."

Sunrise — 6:55 — and midday — 12:10.

Write about whatever you like in the comments.