



blogging from a remote outpost in the midwest since January 2004
Seen, just now, in a prominent place, which I won't name, out of mild avoidance of spoiling.
On TikTok, content creators offer advice on how to achieve “Pilates arms” — lean, sinewy biceps that do not appear overtly muscular — or, more broadly, a “Pilates body,” which typically just means thin. Ms. Monaco-Vavrik worried that these were coded ways to tell women they needed to make themselves small and take up less space — that rather than building strength by lifting weights....
[Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, a professor of history at the New School said,] “I do think that when you look at the dominant aesthetics and messaging around Pilates princesses or Pilates girlies, it definitely upholds very traditional aesthetics of female beauty.... I appreciate that kind of analysis, but it kind of falls apart when you look deeply at it.... Perhaps most foundationally because Pilates does get you very, very strong. Pilates is a really intense workout.”
This gets my tag "MSM reports what's in social media."
Here's the viral video the article is about. It's exactly the video you'd expect from a 24-year-old barre instructor and fitness influencer who studied political science and communications. It's what I'd have said at age 24.
By the way, I just watched a movie made by a 24-year-old woman, and I got the feeling it was exactly the kind of story I thought up when I was that age. Not saying I could have made the movie that topped the Sight & Sound "Greatest Films of All Time," just saying I remember these young-woman thoughts.
When & where should we hold the inaugural American Party congress?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 6, 2025
This will be super fun! https://t.co/zMaELCiXjU
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Justice Barrett wrote, in an opinion [in Trump v. CASA] signed by all five of the other Republican appointees.
“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain,” Justice Barrett went on, referring to Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. “Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”...
I think Liptak is trying to build Jackson's reputation. He writes things like: "Justice Jackson has appeared comfortable expressing herself from the start." He compares her to Justice Breyer and Justice Brandeis:
“I was frightened to death for the first three years,” Justice Breyer said in a 2006 interview. Even Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a giant of the law who sat on the court from 1916 to 1939, needed time to find his footing. “So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him four or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote of his friend and mentor.
That does not work as a compliment to Jackson.
ADDED: The Washington Post just published a similar article, "One of the Supreme Court’s sharpest critics sits on it/Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emerges as a strong voice on an unusually fractious U.S. Supreme Court."
I got:
When a gov fails its ppl, they can break free. King George’s tyranny—taxing w/o consent, ignoring laws, waging war—forces us to declare independence. All men equal, w/ rights to life, liberty. We, free states, pledge to defend this. #USA1776
I said:
Nice. Do another one and make it more elegant, more Jefferson-y
I got:
When a Crown’s despotism denies sacred Rights—Life, Liberty, Consent—we, the People, justly dissolve such bonds. King George’s manifold usurpations compel our Independence. Equal all, we pledge our sacred Honor to free States. #Liberty1776
I said:
Good. I like the inclusion of "sacred." Do another one and put in more of the rights coming from God
When tyranny defies God-given Rights—Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness—we, the People, reject such rule. King George’s oppressions force our sacred Independence. All equal by divine endowment, we vow our Honor to free States. #Freedom1776
[A]s a high school senior in 2009 ... [a]sked to identify his race, he checked a box that he was “Asian” but also “Black or African American,” according to internal data derived from a hack of Columbia University that was shared with The New York Times.
So it depends on what the meaning of "or" is. It could mean "African American" is another way to say "Black," but it could mean check this box if you are either black or African Amercan or both. Mamdani didn't write the form. He filled it out. Now, of course, he knew there was a special advantage to be gained and that "Asian" wasn't much help if any, but he didn't lie. He perceived the potential for selfish advantage and he took it, and now he is offering to bring his advantage-taking skill to the people of New York. Where there is an edge to be gained, Mamdani will grab it for you, the citizens of New York City.
By the way, it is almost surely the case that Columbia wanted applicants to err on the side of claiming to belong to one of the minority groups Columbia gave an advantage to. It may have cared how the class looked when assembled in the auditoriums, and it may have even cared about the much touted educational benefits of a diverse student body. But it's safe to assume that Columbia wanted the racial percentages to look good on paper. If self-advantagers like Mamdani allowed Columbia, back in 2010, to say it had 14.5% "Black or African American" students instead of, say, 10%, Columbia would benefit. What's the problem? Fairness to applicants without the guts to interpret the form in their favor
ADDED: The Times of India explains to its readers:[I]n America, Blackness is recognised as a political identity born of struggle and oppression. Indian-American identity, by contrast, is often invisible—treated as an immigrant economic niche rather than a racial group needing justice. This is why even Kamala Harris, with a Tamil mother, emphasised her Black identity throughout her rise.
On Tuesday, Vice President Joseph Biden referred to those who make bad loans to members of the military, to take advantage of them while they’re overseas, as “Shylocks.”...
The word “shylock,” which has been used to refer to loan sharks, is an eponym from a Jewish character in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Jewish Americans have publicly challenged the portrayal as an insult to Jews for more than 50 years, according to a review of TIME’s archive, even as it remained a fixture of the modern lexicon. Today, “shylock” is considered an antisemitic slur and, after being called out by the Anti-Defamation League, Biden apologized for his “poor choice of words.”
But the vice president’s apology has confused some — perhaps because the term was, not too long ago, considered by many to be appropriate for public usage.
The final vote, 218 to 214, was mostly along party lines and came after Speaker Mike Johnson spent a frenzied day and night toiling to quell resistance in his own ranks that threatened until the very end to derail the president’s signature measure. With all but two Republicans in favor and Democrats uniformly opposed, the action cleared the bill for Mr. Trump’s signature, meeting the July 4 deadline he had demanded.
The book Born Ready... follows the story of Penelope, an apparently biological female who asserts “ ‘I AM a boy.’ ” Id., at 458a. Not only does the story convey the message that Penelope is a boy simply because that is what she chooses to be, but it slyly conveys a positive message about transgender medical procedures. Penelope says the following to her mother:
“ ‘I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.’ ” Id., at 459a.
Penelope’s mother then agrees that Penelope is a boy, and Penelope exclaims: “For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love.” Id., at 462a. To young children, the moral implication of the story is that it is seriously harmful to deny a gender transition and that transitioning is a highly positive experience....
A child's "insides" described as feeling like fire or, alternatively, warm, golden love! Quite aside from the topic of transgenderism, that is — if not blatantly sexual — too closely approximate to sexuality to belong in reading material for children. If I say I'm amazed that school authorities would adopt such a book for classroom instruction, I am sure commenters will scoff at me for being too naive to perceive the deliberate "grooming."
Defense counsel Marc Agnifilo has asked the court to release Sean Combs back to his home in the millionaire enclave of Star Island in Miami. “This is his first conviction, and it’s a prostitution offense,” Agnifilo said. The attorney noted that the charge he was found guilty of was significantly less serious than the ones that kept him detained in a Brooklyn jail for the past nine months....
ADDED: From the NYT reporting: "Sean Combs is on his knees, his elbows on the chair where he was sitting, his head buried. He appeared to be praying. He started a round of applause, which was echoed by his family, who are jubilant."
AND: "With a touch of levity, the judge said he assumed that Sean Combs would not want to return to the Brooklyn jail where he has been held. Mr. Combs shook his head vigorously and put his hands together in prayer." It's hard to believe, then, that the judge would send Combs back to the jail. He should go free today.
James Cordova, a professor of psychology at Clark University, has noticed an unhelpful relationship habit among his clients that he has termed “Sméagol-ing,” based on a character in the film “The Lord of the Rings” who changes “from aggressive Gollum into sniveling Sméagol.”
During a conflict, one person will air a grievance, Dr. Cordova said, “and the other person will respond with: ‘I know, I’m the worst. I’m a terrible partner. I don’t even know why you’re with me.’” Rather than dealing with the problem, Dr. Cordova said, “they just fold, like Sméagol.”...
If you find yourself transforming into Sméagol, practice resisting the urge to cower, take the focus off yourself and address your partner’s concern directly, Dr. Cordova said.
They matched on Tinder shortly after the November presidential election, shared their mutual disappointment about Donald J. Trump’s victory and agreed to meet for a drink. Sitting at a table at Licht Cafe, a bar on Washington’s U Street corridor, Brent Efron and his date, Brady, talked a bit about home and hobbies. But Brady — or at least that’s the name he used — repeatedly steered the conversation back to Mr. Efron’s job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
“It was a boring date,” Mr. Efron, 29, recalled. “He just wanted to talk about work.”...
According to a new Gallup poll, reported at "American Pride Slips to New Low."
"American Pride" is a bit awkward. The question asked was "How proud are you to be an American — extremely proud, very proud, moderately proud, only a little proud or not at all proud?"
OK, this is an original and good point.
— Bojan Tunguz (@tunguz) June 29, 2025
pic.twitter.com/CmAHI9fUnr
Yes, the Morgan Wallen people were out in abundance yesterday, and there's a second concert tonight. This is my neighborhood, where I remember, long ago, listening to Pink Floyd wafting over from Camp Randall.
I hadn't realized it's been 28 years since there's been a concert in the football stadium. Nice. The crowd seems to have included lots of people from out of town. So many women in short shorts and cowboy boots. We talked to a couple who'd come in from Iowa for the big concert. Me, I'd never heard of Morgan Wallen, but what do I know? I found out he's the biggest star. I hope he and everyone else enjoy Madison.
If you watch the video, keep an eye out for the children selling lemonade. The reporter asks each of them what they'll do with the money, and you may be surprised at what they say.
Just yesterday, re-watching the last episode of my favorite TV show, "The Comeback," I said, "Valerie Cherish is my favorite TV character, ever."
"Really? What about Seinfeld?"
"No." I thought back over all the TV characters I could remember to see if anyone meant so much to me and said, "There's only one other person I can think of: Maynard G. Krebs."
The cases will be posted on the Court's website, here. And here's the live-blogging at SCOTUSblog.
Here's Grok's summary of the remaining cases — birthright citizenship, racial gerrymandering, the nondelegation doctrine, Obamacare, access to on-line porn, and parents opting their kids out of woke school lessons.
UPDATE 1: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue" — Trump v. CASA. This is the "birthright citizenship" case, but it did not address the issue "whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." Decided 6-3 (in the usual 6-3 breakdown).
From Justice Barrett's opinion: The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history. Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority. That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible. Even during the “deluge of constitutional litigation that occurred in the wake of Ex parte Young, throughout the Lochner Era, and at the dawn of the New Deal,” universal injunctions were nowhere to be found....Had federal courts believed themselves to possess the tool, surely they would not have let it lay idle."
Addressing Justice Jackson's dissent, Barrett writes: "JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) ('If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law some-times becomes a matter of Executive prerogative'). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law. JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring 'legalese,' post, at 3, she seeks to answer 'a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' Ibid. In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' Ibid. That goes for judges too."
UPDATE 2: Kennedy v. Braidwood rejects the Appointments Clause challenge to the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. The members of the task force are deemed "inferior officers," thus not needing appointment by the President and Senate confirmation. This one is 6-3 in an unusual way. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson join the majority opinion written by Kavanaugh (and also joined by Roberts and Barrett). The dissenters are Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
UPDATE 3: FCC v. Consumers' Research — "The universal-service contribution scheme does not violate the nondelegation doctrine." Another 6-3 the unusual way — with a dissent from Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
UPDATE 4: Mahmoud v. Taylor, 6-3, the usual way. "Parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction." Justice Alito writes for the majority:
The Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland (Board), has introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks into the elementary school curriculum. These books—and associated educational instructions provided to teachers—are designed to “disrupt” children’s thinking about sexuality and gender. The Board has told parents that it will not give them notice when the books are going to be used and that their children’s attendance during those periods is mandatory. A group of parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued to enjoin those policies. They assert that the new curriculum, combined with the Board’s decision to deny opt outs, impermissibly burdens their religious exercise.
Today, we hold that the parents have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 218 (1972). And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction. Based on these principles, we conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies....
I added the boldface. The school was so out front in its desire to reprogram children. They must have been pious believers... or at least people who felt called to pose as pious believers.
UPDATE 5: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, 6-3, the usual way, upholding the Texas law that restricts access to on-line porn. How do you exclude minors without burdening access for everyone? Here, the state required age verification. "But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification. Any burden on adults is therefore incidental to regulating activity not protected by the First Amendment. This makes intermediate scrutiny the appropriate standard under the Court’s precedents." And the law "advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests."
Kagan writes in dissent: "[I]f a scheme other than H. B. 1181 can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A State may not care much about safeguarding adults’ access to sexually explicit speech; a State may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a State cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children."
UPDATE 6: The racial gerrymandering case — Louisiana v. Callais — will be reargued. Justice Thomas, alone, dissents: "These cases also warrant immediate resolution because, due to our Janus-like election-law jurisprudence, States do not know how to draw maps that 'survive both constitutional and VRA review.'"