"Thank you all for being here and now, uhh, who am I introducing next? Who’s next?"

Said the President of the United States — who is he? uhh, whatsisname? — quoted in "Awkward moment Biden fumbles, snaps at staffers after forgetting he was supposed to introduce Indian prime minister to stage" (NY Post).

We really don’t have a president.

Biden completely FORGOT he was at a press conference with the Prime Minister of India.

The entire world is laughing at us.
This guy is COOKED. pic.twitter.com/useM07uh0R

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 21, 2024

ADDED: Yeah, seriously: Who is President?

"The case has garnered national attention both for the salaciousness of a high-profile university official making pornographic movies and publicly talking about it..."

"... and the questions it raises about free speech rights. [Joe] Gow argued that his videos and two e-books he and his wife, Carmen, have published about their experiences in adult films are protected by the First Amendment. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect "The Star Spangled Banner,"' Gow’s attorney, Mark Leitner, told the committee. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect easy and comforting speech. It’s exactly the opposite. We need the First Amendment precisely when the danger of stifling, controversial, unpopular speech is at its highest. And that’s what we have here.'... The school is pushing to fire Gow for unethical conduct, insubordination for refusing to cooperate with an investigation and violating computer policies.... Gow has maintained that he and his wife produced the pornographic materials on their own time. He insists the videos and the books never mentioned UW-La Crosse or his role at the university...."

From "Porn-making former University of Wisconsin campus leader argues for keeping his teaching job" (AP)." Gow, formerly chancellor of UW-La Crosse, made his argument to the personnel committee of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.

I don't know if these free-speech arguments garnered the attention of the regents. We're told they "asked no questions."

Watch Senator Fetterman deal with the question of fracking by repeatedly invoking the old eating-the-dogs-eating-the-cats foofaraw.

You may question your brain function:

Fetterman on Meet the Press in response to Welker's question about fracking: "Now in 2024, we're still trying to talk about fracking & the other side is talking about eating cat and geese and dogs... having a serious policy conversation when the other side is absolutely on fire." pic.twitter.com/5A4ZuBfAS4

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 22, 2024

"Sean Combs was able to stay relevant for many years, in part because he used his power to intimidate people in the industry, particularly women, who might say no to him."

"In an article for The New York Times Magazine in July, Danyel Smith, who was the editor of Vibe Magazine in the late 1990s, wrote about the 'menacing encounters' she had with Diddy. He threatened he would see her 'dead in the trunk of a car' if she didn’t show him a cover before publication. Smith describes the ethos of the music industry at the time: 'To report sexual misconduct — whether it was to attorneys or law enforcement or even your supervisor — often meant losing your job. Being ostracized. Or being a girl that just didn’t "get it," or didn’t know how to fend for herself.'"

Writes Jessica Grose in "Sean Combs and the Limits of the 'Family Man' Defense" (NYT).

I didn't excerpt the references to the "family man" defense. I don't think that's necessary, but I would like to quote the last sentence of the column so you can click on the link it contains, which will get you to a high-impact photograph: "There are limits to the ‘family man’ defense no matter how many photos you take with your kids wearing matching pajamas."

I'm less interested in Combs's groping to defend himself now than I am in how so many people supported and protected him for so long.

"Those in power have figured out how to outmaneuver protesters..."

"... by keeping peaceful demonstrators far out of sight, organizing an overwhelming police response that brings the threat of long prison sentences, and circulating images of the most disruptive outliers that makes the whole movement look bad. It works. And the organizers have failed to keep up. The digital platforms they rely on make it difficult to impose any discipline on the message being communicated. Crackpot agitators and off-the-wall causes attach themselves more easily than ever. Conflict erupts. Fueled by the drama-loving algorithms of social media platforms, the movements descend into ugly public bickering.... The internal tensions that social movements have always faced become especially paralyzing when they play out in public, amplified by the algorithms that favor conflict. Without a counterbalancing organizational structure, there’s no way to bridge those differences and build consensus...."

Writes Zeynep Tufekci, in "How the Powerful Outmaneuvered the American Protest Movement" (NYT). Tukfekci is a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University who studies "politics, civics, movements, privacy and surveillance, as well as data and algorithms."

She has a book — "Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest" (commission earned). That's from 2017.