Sunrise — 7:03, 7:15, 7:31, 7:33, 7:42.

"Why is Donald Trump going to win? The people he's about to defeat have no idea."

"And they're panicked. They have no idea why people like Donald Trump, and their first theory was, well, Donald Trump is evil, so half the country is evil.... How much easier would it have been just to pause for 20 minutes and ask yourself honestly, in some silent place: Why do people like Donald Trump? And if they had been honest enough... they would have come up with the two main reasons.... The first reason that people like Donald Trump is because he likes them.... Affection is something you can't fake.... And the second reason that people love Trump... is because he's liberated us in the deepest and truest sense. And the liberation he has brought to us is the liberation from the obligation to tell lies.... If you want to enslave people — if you want to degrade them — force them to tell lies, and they have they forced us to lie about everything at gunpoint, effectively they put people in prison, for refusing to lie...."

Said Tucker Carlson... and to my ear, this was the best speech at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally yesterday:

ADDED: This had a big impact on me because — as I told you many years ago — I had a dream about Trump in 2015, "long before I had any idea he'd become President... in which I was talking about Trump, then saw that he was there listening in on me," and I hugged him and "thanked him, effusively, for teaching us to have the courage to speak freely.... At the time I had that dream I wasn't consciously aware of liking Trump at all, so the dream made a big impression on me. There was something about Trump that I thought was tremendously helpful, and I really wanted to tell him."

"[Ketanji Brown] Jackson is not alone among Justices in telling her life story."

"There is a long tradition of memoirs, notably William O. Douglas’s 'Go East, Young Man,' which is famously colorful and perhaps factually dubious, and his 'The Court Years'; 'The Memoirs of Earl Warren,' published posthumously; Sandra Day O’Connor’s 'Lazy B,' written with her brother, about growing up on a ranch... and John Paul Stevens’s 'The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years'.... [Ketanji Brown Jackson's new memoir] belongs to a modern mini-genre of personal memoirs written much earlier, by sitting Justices. Clarence Thomas pioneered the form, with 'My Grandfather’s Son,' which appeared in 2007, sixteen years into his tenure... followed by Sonia Sotomayor, with 'My Beloved World,' in 2013, four years into hers. The pace has picked up. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have books in the works, too. It is almost as if, along with the judicial robes and clerks, newly confirmed Justices are issued book contracts. The advances alone may be the point. Thomas got a million and a half dollars. Sotomayor has built a franchise... that has earned her close to four million dollars. Barrett’s deal, worth a reported two million, was the subject of an open letter of protest.... Jackson’s contract is not public... The salary for an Associate Justice is about three hundred thousand dollars; there are caps on how much the Justices are allowed to earn for outside work, but book earnings are exempt."

Writes Amy Davidson Sorkin, in "What Can Memoirs by Supreme Court Justices Teach Us? We’re primed to read Justices’ accounts of their lives for clues to their jurisprudence. Should we?" (The New Yorker).

This seems to call for the old Samuel Johnson quote: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money."

And to answer the question in the article title: No. 

"Taking pictures of the same things over and over can emphasize the rhythms of existence."

"Every evening, on the way home from work, I pass the same red-and-white fire hydrant, which is set into some reedy bushes on a little promontory overlooking a harbor. I often stop to take a picture of it: its red registers as warmer in summer and cooler in winter, and its white adopts the yellow of scorched grass in late summer and fall.... I think with some regularity of a remark made by the British-Irish comedian Jimmy Carr, who once told an interviewer that the meaning of life was 'enjoying the passage of time.' Everyday photography, with its implicit emphasis on what recurs, makes enjoying the passage of time a little easier.... [N]o, you’re not likely to wring transcendence out of the mundane on a regular basis. You can, however, learn something about yourself and your world by doing or attempting to do these things. Even amateur hour becomes golden hour, sometimes."

Writes Joshua Rothman, in "What Can You Learn from Photographing Your Life? Pictures of the mundane can capture much more" (The New Yorker).

I regularly go out at sunrise, and when I go, I always take photographs. But then I also, with almost equal regularity, go out for a second walk, and I rarely take photographs. But I did take one yesterday — the forest at noon:

Trump likened to a lion and to Elon Musk's rocket.

In this ad, tweeted last night by Elon Musk:

pic.twitter.com/aVk3rLClpT

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 28, 2024

I have to just try to imagine the people who get all jazzed up by music and montage like that. Here's something — also pro-Trump and heavy on the A.I. — that I saw yesterday and found more appealing:

Joe Rogan would like to have a conversation with Kamala Harris "like a human being — that's all I want to do — that's literally all I want to do."

"I want to know what is it like to be — I don't even give a fuck about all all stuff she's talked about about policies and all these different things. We all know her positions.... Who are you? Who are you?... I would be willing to talk about anything other than politics.... If there was some certain things they didn't want to talk about, like fine, I don't care, let's talk. I want to know who you are. I can find out who you are if we can talk about sports.... I want to talk to her like a human being...."

Who are you? Who are you?... Yes, we all have that question. 

Elite media reacts to Trump's MSG extravaganza by zeroing in on Tony Hinchcliffe (Kill Tony).

I never take the bait anymore when headlines say things like...

• "As Trump courts their vote, comedian at his rally makes racist jokes about Latinos and Puerto Rico Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made crude jokes about Latinos having babies and called Puerto Rico a 'floating island of garbage,' drawing a rebuke from several Republicans" (NBC News) 

• "Trump’s New York homecoming sparks backlash over racist and vulgar remarks/A pro-Trump comedian’s racist diatribe drew widespread condemnation" (Politico)

• "Anti-Puerto Rico comments at Trump rally spur outrage as Bad Bunny supports Harris/The artist’s gesture of support came as a number of speakers at a Trump event in New York made racist and disparaging comments about Puerto Ricans and other Latinos" (WaPo) 

• "A Trump Rally Speaker Trashed Puerto Ricans. Harris Reached Out to Them. Her campaign moved swiftly to highlight that even as a speaker at Donald Trump’s rally in New York made offensive remarks about Puerto Rico and Latinos, she was visiting Puerto Rican voters in Philadelphia" (NYT)

I started watching the rally at 4 Central Time — when I put up a post — so I hadn't seen the Hinchcliffe routine in real time. My first instinct was to watch the entire 12 minutes of his routine. Here. You can use the Althouse method of determining what somebody said. Listen to him, in context:

It seems to me that Hinchcliffe made some deliberately offensive jokes:

• "There's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah. I think it's called Puerto Rico."

• "I think that Travis Kelce might be the next OJ Simpson."

• Purporting to see a black friend in the audience: "He had a Halloween party last night. We had fun. We carved watermelons together."

• "Wars. It is unbelievable what's happening right now. It is incredible. Ukraine versus Russia. Israel/Palestine. It's like bad soccer games. Who even cares?"

It was as though he was challenging the crowd to guffaw and give Trump opponents the opportunity to accuse them of racism or whatever. He just went ahead and told those jokes.

He had 2 defenses ready to insert where needed. One was the conventional comedian's ploy of openly talking about how his jokes are failing. The crowd is tough. Or: This is the wrong crowd for this kind of material (which ought to absolve the Trumpers of agreeing with whatever racism inheres in those jokes (but won't)).

The other defense is to follow the offense with a sharp shift to a declaration about the importance of freedom of speech. This is the old Lenny Bruce move that takes risks. It was very hip and cool when Lenny Bruce did it, but it's hard to bring the whole world along with you if you try that. Ask Michael Richards. And Lenny Bruce paid for it in his own time. 

It isn't really fair to deploy this comedic approach at somebody else's event, especially when it's really important and you know that person has antagonists who are standing by waiting to pounce on any material they can use to call him a racist. But maybe Trump wanted this kind of attention-getting edginess. Hinchcliffe has his fans. I bet Barron Trump is one of them. I've heard Trump say, more than once, that he takes advice from Barron about which comedians young people love.

Hinchcliffe had another comic move. With a foundation of failed jokes before the tough crowd, he was in position to comment when the crowd finally, genuinely responded with real spontaneous laughter at one of them. Here's that joke:

"It feels good in here. The other side's got a lot of crazy endorsements. Swift, Eminem, Leo DiCaprio, Beyonce. Every day the Democratic party looks more and more like a P Diddy party."

He said: "Oh oh okay okay — that's what you guys want all right. Heck yeah...."

Sunrise — 7:29, 7:32, 7:44.

In case you'd like to comment on Trump's Madison Square Garden rally...

... here's the live feed:

JD Vance versus Jake Tapper.

NEW: JD Vance shuts down a very emotional Jake Tapper over CNN’s constant coverage of hoaxes.

Tapper, who was very emotional throughout the interview, sat as Vance roasted CNN for their biased coverage.

Vance: Ask yourself a basic question about network integrity. You guys… pic.twitter.com/0Ce84sWrH3

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 27, 2024

And this montage works as a fact-check on Tapper:

 

BREAKING: JD Vance called out Fake Tapper for the lies he pushed about Russiagate earlier this morning

Tapper denied telling any lies

So here are 3.5 minutes of Jake Tapper spreading Russiagate conspiracy theory pic.twitter.com/qeiFMtimx9

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 27, 2024

"Voters prefer Harris’s agenda to Trump’s — they just don’t realize it. Take our quiz."

You're not in reality until you're for Harris, The Washington Post informs you before you've even taken the quiz. 

But I'll supply you with a free link anyway: here. Let them prove to you what you really want.

Is it anti-democratic to believe that voters don't really know what they want? There's some higher knowledge of what is really wanted that is beyond the reach of the voters... but not beyond the reach of The Washington Post.

Hey, this quiz is 5 days old! Why is it in the top right corner of the WaPo home page?

Is there so little new news that can work to encourage readers to vote for Kamala? Searching the entire front page, I find "See how people like you vote," "Polls are tied, voters dig in and Harris, Trump scratch for any advantage," "Michelle Obama implores men to support Harris to protect women’s health," "To understand the U.S. economic success is to love Harris’s plan," and — my favorite — "Harris talks increasingly about her faith but walks a careful line."

"You know how polls are done. Oh, I'm gonna get myself in trouble, but, so I really don't believe too much in 'em...."

"These pollsters, they charge you a lot of money... half a million bucks to do some stupid poll. They interview like 251 people. I don't think they interview 'em in many cases.... I think they sit there, they make a deal, they get a half a million bucks and they say, Trump's leading 51 to 49. They announce it and everybody says, oh oh.... I think that they probably don't always poll. Some of them probably never poll.... I don't know of one person in my whole life that ever got called by a pollster...."

Said Donald Trump, talking to Joe Rogan the other day.

"But I shouldn't say that 'cause I'm doing very, you know, really well in the polls..... But no, I honestly believe that there's probably a lot of fraud. I had a poll Washington Post/ABC in the Hillary thing on Wisconsin. They had me down 17 points the day before the election. I knew it was wrong because I had a rally. I had 29,000 people at a racetrack. And it was like zero degrees. Wisconsin.

"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality."

Wrote C.S. Lewis, quoted by David French, in "Four Lessons From Nine Years of Being 'Never Trump'" (NYT).

That's a free-access link, so you can see for yourself what 4 lessons French learned.

But I liked the C.S. Lewis quote in the abstract. It's so abstract! The "highest reality," eh?

And now, this blog has a theme today: reality. This is only the second post of the day, but the first post was about a NYT column called "Could Eminem Snap Gen X Voters Back to Reality?"

Is there a sense — at the NYT and elsewhere — that reality is at stake, that it's out there, eluding us, and we need to struggle to get a grip on it, and we are losing?

I am reminded of Trump's saying — on the Joe Rogan podcast — that when he became President, "it was very surreal." But: "When I got shot, it wasn't surreal. That should have been surreal. When I was laying on the ground, I knew exactly what was going on. I knew exactly where I was hit.... I knew exactly what happened.... With the presidency, it was a very surreal experience.... And all of a sudden I'm standing in the White House, and it was very, very surreal...."

I am reminded of Elon Musk's "There's no truer test than courage under fire."

And: "Reality, what a concept!"

A NYT columnist wonders about "Eminem’s endorsement, and the way he made it" and it makes me question whether Eminem did endorse Harris.

I'm reading "Could Eminem Snap Gen X Voters Back to Reality?" by Jessica Grose:

Obama casually rapping a few bars of “Lose Yourself” got a lot more attention than Eminem’s brief speech. But in this tight election that could be decided by a few swing states — including Michigan — I wonder if Eminem’s endorsement, and the way he made it, will be the most consequential one that Vice President Harris receives.

What was special about the way he made what Grose is calling his "endorsement"? Reading the transcript and rewatching the video, I realized that Eminem did not make an endorsement at all — not of a candidate anyway. What Eminem endorsed was freedom of speech. That's where he put his Michigan clout:

"So look I wrote down a few things I wanted to say...."

He's a wordsmith, and he tells us he wrote it down. That means these words really matter. This is text. It's been crafted.

"I'm here tonight for a couple of important reasons."

There will be 2 reasons stated. Let's find 2 reasons and not hallucinate additional reasons.

Sunrise — 7:12.

If Trump on the Joe Rogan show was not enough for you...

 ... get ready for JD Vance on the Tim Dillon show — here — in 26 minutes.