Chief Justice Roberts admonishes the House Managers and the President's counsel to "remember where they are" and "avoid speaking in a manner and avoid using language that is not conducive to civil discourse."

"I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House Managers and the President's counsel, in equal terms, to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and avoid using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. In the 1905 Swain trial, a Senator objected when one of the managers used the word 'pettifogging,' and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are."

I didn't watch much of yesterday's theatrics, but I did think the style of speech was inappropriate for a legal presentation. It was more like actors in a courtroom drama. Lawyers arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court do not take anything like that tone. I only heard a small bit of argument from House Managers, but it was obvious to me that they were speaking through the cameras at the American people and trying to gain political ground. I was able to vocalize disgust and walk away, but the Chief Justice is required to sit there and listen, and all the Senators are required to sit there and listen, and the form of speech really disrespects them.

There's so much talk about solemnity and seriousness, but these characters are speaking like they're in a Hollywood melodrama. Something really wrong is going on here....



IN THE COMMENTS: Darrell says: "Sure. Criticize both sides. That makes you look impartial. That's what losers do." But if you look at the Washington Post's story on the Roberts admonishment, you'll see the highest-rated comments there accuse Roberts of bias against the Democrats:

Sacha Baron Cohen show ended its season without ever using his encounter with Sarah Palin.

The Daily Beast reports:

Despite Showtime’s attempts to tamp down expectations, it seemed inevitable that Baron Cohen would save Palin’s sit-down interview with Dr. Billy Wayne Ruddick, PhD for the seventh and final episode this Sunday. But it was nowhere to be found, perhaps for legal reasons or simply because the comedian just didn’t think it was good enough.

Instead the finale had O.J. Simpson. See if you think was worth doing:

Watch O.J. Simpson high-five @SachaBaronCohen after he makes a joke about murdering his girlfriend on the #WhoIsAmerica finale https://t.co/DfnzmTBKq4 pic.twitter.com/cEoZM2k5C5

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) August 27, 2018

IN THE COMMENTS: Darrell gives Cohen the joke he deserves: "It would have been funny if OJ stabbed HIM seventeen times."

Reassurance backfires. Whom could something like this reassure? It only stokes doubt.

I see the media is working overtime speculating where I am & what I'm doing. Rest assured, I'm here at the @WhiteHouse w my family, feeling great, & working hard on behalf of children & the American people!

— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) May 30, 2018

IN THE COMMENTS: Ken B said:

Really Althouse? A woman who just had surgery sends a note “I'm fine”. That is odd to you, or a tactic?

I said:

My point is, she gave air to a conspiracy theory I hadn’t heard of, so she actually promoted it.

Darrell said:

The theories about Melania's absence have been all over the web for the last several days. "She co-operating with Mueller!!11!!!" "Trump is toast!!11!!!" "She went back to NY!!11!!!" Keep up with the fake news.

"Since marriage is a partnership, I’d like to know who I am and what I’m able to offer financially and how stable I am, before I’m committed legally to someone."

"My mom says I’m removing all the romance from the equation, but I know there’s more to marriage than just love. If it’s just love, I’m not sure it would work."

Says one millennial — a 24-year-old woman — quoted in "Put a Ring on It? Millennial Couples Are in No Hurry/Young adults not only marry and have children later than previous generations, they take more time to get to know each other before tying the knot" (NYT).

If it’s just love, I’m not sure it would work... But if it's also not just love, but includes all of those things you've consumed youthful years sorting out, you still won't be sure it will work. The question isn't how can I be sure...



... it's how sure do I need to be before I merge my fate, in these few short years I have on earth, with another human being? All of life is a leap into the unknown, and life sweeps by, leaping all around you, even if you stand back, unleaping. Everyone is getting older, and those who hold back, seeking security and hoping somehow eventually to find themselves, may find a lonely, inflexible self that never truly loved.

IN THE COMMENTS: Darrell said:

Luckily, you can run away at the first sign of trouble.

Mr. D said:

The only thing you can know is that your circumstances will change, so make sure the person you're with can adapt to the changes.

Is the incoherence intended as humor? As a sympathetic reader, I'll assume yes.
Darrell said:

Want to be sure? Find a beautiful 60-year-old then go back in time and grab her at twenty. That'll give you forty good years.

Eleanor said:

We're raising kids who are not allowed to take risks. Failure is not an option we give them. They've grown up risk-adverse. It should come as no surprise they're very cautious about getting married. Marriage is a leap of faith. Whether one makes lists and tallies up all the pros and cons, or just jumps off the cliff, it's a big risk. We've been married 45 years, and it was the best return on any investment either of us has ever made, but we didn't think about it that way at the time. We were just two kids who held hands and leaped.

If you're ever going to jump, you might want to jump young. Not jumping is taking a different risk.

How tall was Jesus?

Not baby Jesus. I know it's Christmas, but I'm thinking about the grown man Jesus.

I had never until yesterday thought about how tall Jesus was. The question arose yesterday, when I was blogging about a NYT article that described a man as having "Christ-length hair." Some commenters brought up the question whether we know the length of Christ's hair, but to my mind, the grammatical construction "Christ-length hair" means (unintentionally) hair the length of Christ.

That's ludicrously long hair, whether Jesus was tall as the actors who've portrayed him in the movies — such as Diogo Morgado who is 6'3" or Max von Sydow, who was 6'4" — or as short as the average man in the time and place where he lived — which might be 5'1":

From an analysis of skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an average weight of about 110 pounds.” I admit that it feels a bit strange to think of being over a foot taller than Jesus! But it’s good to have our cultural preconceptions—even prejudices—challenged....

We do know that in the writings, Jesus and people in his area sustained themselves on bread and fish.... Jesus height probably we stunted by his diet. Plus, we know that Jesus also practiced the art of fasting like so many other religions... [T]he average roman male was probably between 5′ 3″- 5′ 5″. Jesus was alive during that time, but he was not roman, and he did not live the same life. The 2 inches of difference which would result from the lifestyle difference and the hardship of his life suggest the value by archeologists is quite accurate. In conclusion, I would say that the real height of the historical Jesus Christ was probably between 5’0- 5′ 2″.

In yesterday's post, when I said "I looked up how tall was Jesus and saw the estimate that he was only 5'1"," a commenter (Darrell) retorted: "He is God--and He could be any height that pleased Him." Are we to infer God, taking on the life of a man, would definitely want to be tall? What's more sacrilegious, imputing a height preference to God or assuming Jesus was within the bell curve of height for men of that time and place?

One answer is do not think about the height of Jesus. I've lived twice as long as Jesus and had not thought until yesterday about how tall he was.

But I went looking for Biblical text on the subject of how Jesus looked, and I found this useful page, with verses from the Old and New Testaments.

For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

That's Isaiah 53:1-12. I would interpret "he had no form or majesty that we should look at him" to mean that Jesus was not tall.

On the subject of whether we should be thinking in terms of what height God would choose for himself, there's also Isaiah 55:8-9:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Violent ideation from Sarah Silverman.

This is an actual tweet from the once seemingly smart comedienne:

'WAKE UP & JOIN THE RESISTANCE. ONCE THE MILITARY IS W US FASCISTS GET OVERTHROWN. MAD KING & HIS HANDLERS GO BYE BYE,' Silverman wrote.

Later she added: 'We're all gonna die sounds so dire but we are though (all gonna die).'

IN THE COMMENTS: PB says:

Comedienne? when was she ever funny?

Darrell says:

Woman are smart and funny. Deal with it.

Heh. I get it: