"Could you clarify the purpose of this kind of post?"

David emails:

Your blog post today: about a NYT article contained: 

• A pull quote from the article
• A link to the article 
• No content from you. 

Since you disabled comments on your blog, I have been trying to understand how you view the blog's purpose.

This particular post, which contained no original content from you, is the kind of thing you used to post in order to elicit discussion. But because that is no longer possible, I do not understand your intent. Do you now see yourself as an unpaid advertiser for the NYT? I hardly think they need your support, and simply reposting NYT content seems pretty weak.

Could you clarify the purpose of this kind of post? Maybe a post explaining it would be helpful.

My emailed response:

"Could you clarify the purpose of this kind of post?"

No. 

Think your own thoughts.

ADDED: I hope you remember that I got rid of the comments because of a round-the-clock problem with some very destructive trolls. I could not handle the work. Otherwise, I'd have left the comments on. But there is a type of comment I feel much better off without, and that is people who'd say — over and over — things like: Why do you read the NYT? She's still reading the NYT. What do you expect, it's the NYT? When are you going to stop reading the NYT?

ALSO: Why did David think I had to explain my purpose when elsewhere he assumed he knew my purpose? He wrote, "This... is the kind of thing you used to post in order to elicit discussion." If you could read my mind then, why not read my mind now? A lateral-thinking guess is that he was never really interested in my purpose only in whether my posts worked the way he liked. If a post prompts people to comment, then it also prompts people to think, and each person's thinking takes place whether they get to share their thoughts in writing or not. That's why I said "Think your own thoughts." 

Do you get better thoughts if you have to do your own thinking and cannot immediately scan other people's instant reactions? 

Here's another idea: Read the post out loud to your companion and have a conversation about it in your real-life space. That's something we here at Meadhouse do all the time.  

AND: "That's something we here at Meadhouse do all the time." It's also something people did in the old days, when there was only one copy of the paper newspaper. I remember my paternal grandfather, Pop, reading the paper in his living room, mostly silently, but now and then reading something out loud. You can still do that!  

"When Lou swims naked in the river, he begins to 'run his long, ridged tongue up and down her wet back.'"

"The bear is 'like a dog, like a groundhog, like a man: big.' One night, by the fire, he begins to lick her with a tongue 'capable of lengthening itself like an eel,' and 'like no human being she had ever known it persevered in her pleasure. When she came, she whimpered and the bear licked away her tears.'  Lou becomes lyrical and hazy with love for the bear; a sort of delirium descends on her. She wants him to devour her, but he is good, and gentle, 'once laid a soft paw on her naked shoulder, almost lovingly.' Can Lou get what she wants – from a man, or a bear? Eventually, the bear, by sheer dint of being of a bear, injures her.... When Bear was first published [in 1976], to great acclaim and some controversy, the feminist and women’s liberation movements had been burgeoning for some years in North America and Europe.... Just how linked to sex should feminism be? And what kind of sex, for that matter? The 'sex wars' of the 80s were on the horizon, and heterosexual feminists were grappling with men as objects of desire who can nonetheless always pose a threat. [The author] is playful, slyly winking on these questions; riffing, for example, on age-old misogynistic associations of women’s genitals with fish, as when Lou buys fish for the bear, which repels her."

From "Animal attraction: Bear, the controversial story of one woman’s sexual awakening/First published in the 70s, Marian Engel’s novel about a lonely librarian’s relationship with a bear interrogates boundaries between men and women, humans and animals" (The Guardian). 

That's on the occasion of a new edition of the book, but I'm only seeing an old (expensive) edition on Amazon for us United Statesians.  

From the quotes in the article, I'd say that the book is comic erotica. 

I like the question "Just how linked to sex should feminism be? And what kind of sex, for that matter?" The answer to the second question can't be with a bear. But it can be literary fantasy.

This gets my "pornography" tag because I want the tags to be neither too broad nor too narrow. I collect things that are useful to think of together, and that includes all sorts of thoughts about why the things the tag gathers together are different from each other.

IN THE EMAIL: A reader named David writes: 

"Psychiatry group tells members they can defy ‘Goldwater rule’ and comment on Trump’s mental health."

The executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association emailed its 3,500 members, STAT reports.

The impetus for the email was “belief in the value of psychoanalytic knowledge in explaining human behavior,” said psychoanalytic association past president Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, a psychiatrist in Chicago. “We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly.”

That responsibility is especially great today, she told STAT, “since Trump’s behavior is so different from anything we’ve seen before” in a commander in chief.

An increasing number of psychologists and psychiatrists have denounced the restriction as a “gag rule” and flouted it, with some arguing they have a “duty to warn” the public about what they see as Trump’s narcissism, impulsivity, poor attention span, paranoia, and other traits that, they believe, impair his ability to lead....

“In the case of Donald Trump, there is an extraordinary abundance of speech and behavior on which one could form a judgment,” [said Dr. Leonard Glass, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School]. “It’s not definitive, it’s an informed hypothesis, and one we should be able to offer rather than the stunning silence demanded by the Goldwater rule.”

Let them speak, and then the rest of us will speak about whether they are professionals deserving of deference or human beings like the rest of us who can't keep our political preferences from skewing whatever it is we might think about some pressing issue of the day.

Go ahead, expose yourselves. Let us see all narcissism, impulsivity, poor attention span, paranoia, and other traits that impair your ability to lead.

IN THE COMMENTS: David said:

The percentage of hacks, cranks and fools in the mental health "profession" is stunningly high. And many of them are in a position to make individual lives worse.

And Michael K (who is a surgeon) said:

I personally know several who went into Psychiatry to deal with their own mental health problems. One guy was a former surgery resident who went full psychotic and started to be treated by the chief of Psychiatry at a university medial center. That chief of Psychiatry then accepted him into the residency which he finished. He was brilliant but as crazy as anyone I've ever seen.

Obama's photographer was "trying to make a point."

Meeting with top advisors. This is a full-frame picture. I guess you'd say I was trying to make a point.

A post shared by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Feb 6, 2017 at 9:29am PST

From a New York Magazine piece titled "Former Obama White House Photographer’s Instagram Is a Master Class in Shade" by Madison Malone Kircher, who obviously thinks Pete Souza is featuring these photographs now to put Trump in a negative light. But is it that easy? For example, in that photograph with the women, Kircher thinks it's a great comment on the lack of women in the Trump administration, but it had me thinking about the criticism Trump received over the message that women should "dress like women." The 3 women in that photo with Obama look like they got a memo requiring long skirts, no visible leg skin, and black high-heeled boots. It looks cool in the photograph, but not because it's a clear message that Obama is easy-going and egalitarian. It's ambiguous! (Which makes it better art.)

Then look at this photograph showing with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, who also visited Trump last week. The caption is "Allies":

Allies.

A post shared by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Feb 13, 2017 at 12:50pm PST

Does that photograph clearly show the 2 men as equals? I see Trudeau dominating... maybe. It's ambiguous anyway. And congratulations to Souza for reusing his photographs with some style and subtlety.

IN THE COMMENTS: David said:

The two photos Souza put up were posed. So in that sense he is correct that they are accurate manifestations of the Obama White House.

It's quite arrogant of a man who was given a career making eight years of access to the office of the President and his private home to use those photos to disparage the next president. Souza was paid by the people of the United States while he had this matchless opportunity. He was part of the White House staff, who have a deservedly sterling reputation for serving every President with discretion and loyalty. Except Souza.

Another way to look at it is that Souza is acknowledging that his role was propagandist.

"This Sexist Cartoon Everyone Is Freaking Out About..."

... isn't really what it appears to be.

Imagine carrying a child for 9 months & give birth & take care of them for years for them to grow up to be the person who created this? pic.twitter.com/CaTCVjMytL

— boqor riya. (@hausofriya) February 15, 2017

So... I can see how you might argue that it's not sexist because it's feminist: The woman begins as a dupe of society and, after reading about feminism, adopts a natural look. But those who are freaking out are seeing body shaming and even racism:

According to this picture, reading weakens muscle tone, and in addition to that it makes you look white and almost European and makes you cut your hair too. Just ignore that picture, one can read and remain black and dress as one wish.

But the real story behind that picture is way different from old feminism quandaries about getting dolled up:

[T]he artist behind the piece, who is known on DeviantArt as Sortimid, says the art is part of an erotic niche called “bimbo transformation.”... Sortimid says that the viral cartoon was a commissioned piece for someone who wanted to see this transformation in reverse. They did not expect the art to be seen outside of the transformation porn community.

Sortimid has apologized, adding:

“Perhaps it was naïve of me to assume it was ‘just another transformation.’ People don’t see it as ‘porn’ so they assume it must be a statement. Their criticism is valid. I apologize for advancing those stereotypes. I strive to create erotica that is both sexy and feminist. It seems, in this case, I have failed spectacularly and for that, I apologize. If there’s anything I can do to make up for it, please let me know.”

I don't want to further complicate the life of Sortimid, but I remember when porn was considered to be quite a statement, and seeing something as intended to be porn would not exclude feminist criticism. Doesn't anyone say "Pornography is the theory, and rape is the practice" anymore?

IN THE COMMENTS: David says: David said:

By there way, she does not change from black to white, racially at least. She just discards her obsession with tanning.

And I said:

Why aren't fair-skinned women criticized for cultural appropriation and even blackface when they go in for tanning like that?

A quick googling found this:

Don't panic yet, Trump loathers. Hillary's bounce is yet to come.

CNN reports its shocking new poll result with the into "The bounce is back."

Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000. That year Al Gore and George W. Bush both boosted their numbers by an identical 8 points post-convention before ultimately battling all the way to the Supreme Court.

So if Trump got 6, Hillary should get 6. Just hang on. Wait a week. The rightful order of things will be restored....

ADDED: "Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein."

Trump gained 15% among the independents!

AND: There's a big flaw in the idea that Clinton should get the same bounce from her convention — like it's a bounce year, comparable to 2000, when Gore and Bush got identical 8-point boosts. Trump had to move from being a strange phenomenon to being seen as even a normal candidate, a person would could credibly serve as President, let alone an especially great prospect. That is, he had huge upward potential. Hillary is so well known. What is the convention supposed to do to change how we think of her? Trump had to fight through the establishment and getting accepted in the ritual of a convention was a real transition from him. But Hillary was her party's preference all along. The convention can only be more of the same... except to the extent that the Bernie delegates — fueled by the recent DNC links — manage to act up. There's a downside for her if the Bernie people don't shut up for the good of the great cause of defeating Trump. But I think they will. Bernie is speaking tonight. 

IN THE COMMENTS: David said: "Is there really that much movement, or are the polls less accurate than usual in a year of rebellion?"

It may be that before the convention, people were holding back from telling pollsters they supported Trump and that the convention, by normalizing him, caused these people to go ahead and acknowledge they're for him.

I think it's been the case — and it's still partly true — that there are a lot of people who have the feeling that they don't personally support Trump and don't want to be thought of that way, but that they are aware of somehow nevertheless wanting him to win.

I have heard it expressed just this way: I'm not for Trump, but I want him to win. That's a hell of a state of mind!

That would have been the line of the night if only it weren't Jeb Bush saying it.

"He's a chaos candidate, and he'd be a chaos president." ("He" = Trump.)

Jeb seemed to come prepared to deliver lines, but he can't put them across. I woke up this morning, and reading about the debate, I got a joke of Jeb's that drifted right by me last night. Something about him — I don't know what it is — makes me numb. Asked, "Why are you better qualified to deal with Vladimir Putin than Mr. Trump?," Bush said:

BUSH: Because I -- first of all, I know what I don't know. I know what I don't know. I would seek out, as I have, the best advice that exists. I won't get my information from the shows. I don't know if that's Saturday morning or Sunday morning. I don't know which one.

At the time, I was just bored or embarrassed for him. He stumbled into the beginning. He said "I know what I don't know" twice. He stopped to smile in a way that perhaps his friends tell him is nice, but just seems hapless. Then he says he'll get advice from others. That's how he'll match Putin, by getting help from others? Then he pins something on Trump that annoys me, because it doesn't even sound true (and I've heard it before): he gets his "information from the shows." "The shows" — who talks like that? What shows?

Then comes the joke that I heard but didn't feel any motivation to crank through a half second of brain work to get: "I don't know if that's Saturday morning or Sunday morning." That was the third "I don't know" in a short answer, and it's immediately followed by another "I don't know," which seems like a nudge to get us to see the joke, but I didn't accept the nudge. I didn't care. I was still distracted into feeling defensive for Trump — Trump, who is completely capable of defending himself. But Trump doesn't deserve to be accused of getting his information from TV shows. Only in the morning, reading about the debate did the joke register: The Saturday morning shows are the cartoons.

Yeah, I remember. Back in the days when kids only had broadcast network shows to watch on TV and there was no cable, no video recordings, no internet, Saturday mornings were a special time for watching cartoons.

The question was "Why are you better qualified to deal with Vladimir Putin than Mr. Trump?" and he meanders his way to an unfair joke about cartoons. As if he's an entertainer. But the rap on Trump is supposed to be that Trump is only an entertainer. But if Trump had told the joke, I'd have heard a joke. Jeb just came across as bumbling and weak. When the subject was Putin!

IN THE COMMENTS: David reminds us of an interview in which Trump — asked "Who do you talk to for military advice right now?" — said "Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great-- you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and...."

I said:

I do remember him saying that, but I don't believe he has no advisers now. Jeb should have nailed him with a specific reference to that. "Trump says 'I watch the shows' -- Watch the shows!! -- The shows! I guess he meant the Sunday shows, but that's so shallow and simple-minded it might as well be the Saturday shows, the cartoons." That's too long. You have to hone it down. "Trump says 'I watch the shows' -- The shows! That's shallow and simple-minded. What shows? The cartoon shows? The man is a cartoon."

Trump is vulnerable to this attack. Jeb is just so bad at delivering it. As I say in the post, his approach had me "feeling defensive for Trump" even though Trump "is completely capable of defending himself."

I respond to comments to yesterday's evening's post "I walked down to State Street to get a cup of coffee and ran into a gay pride parade."

Chuck said: "Professor Althouse, having lived briefly in your lovely neighborhood myself, I happen to know that for you to 'walk down to State Street for a cup of coffee,' you'd have had to bypass three or four other pretty wonderful coffee shops. Are you being coy about why you walked at least two miles, the better part of an hour, to the scene of the Gay Pride Parade at the very moment it was starting?"

I like to go for walks, and I usually motivate myself by setting a destination and a reward, like ice cream at the Union Terrace or coffee at Colectivo on Monroe Street. There's a new Colectivo on State Street, and I decided to go there again and make it a longer walk. On the way I stopped at the Chazen Museum...



... and I arrived on State Street just as the paraders were amassing in the staging area. I walked up a couple blocks, positioned myself on a corner and waited a mere 5 minutes before the parade began. Got my planned coffee about 20 minutes later.

Humperdink said: "Yep, throw your sexuality in my face (and others) again and again and again. That'll win us over."

Their sexuality is firmly entrenched on the other side of your face, in your head. No sexuality was thrown in anyone's face. In fact, the parade was completely unsexy. There were people in matching T-shirts indicating membership in some good-doing group. There were hockey players. The dressed-up folks looked rather bored. Some tamely danced. The liveliest float was the one for the Methodist church — not included in the edit — with a little band playing "When the Saints Go Marching In." There were a couple vote-for-me politicians at the front of the parade, right after the lead-off motorcyclists. Near the back of the parade — what symbolism! — was a "black lives matter" group and a Latino group. Seriously, it was the polar opposite of in-your-face sexuality.

David said: "Overwhelmingly white, as usual in Smugsville...."

It's Madison. And my iPhone ran out of space before the "black lives matter" group arrived.

Curious George said: "Hey was that justice fora day JoAnne 'I won' Kloppenberg at :05? I think it was. Same 'Deer in the headlight' stare. I'm guessing she got lost and decided to follow the shiny things."

That was, indeed, JoAnne Kloppenburg. She's running for Supreme Court Justice again. I don't know why politicians are put at the front of a parade like this. It bugged me, especially since the "black lives matter" political cause was relegated to the back.

JZ said: "Gay seems like the wrong word to me...."

That has got to be the tritest observation on the subject. Maybe if you'd said that 40 years ago, it would be fresh.

lgv said: "Why are they proud. They say they were born that way. It's like being proud of being left handed. One can be proud of their accomplishments, but I'm not sure that being proud of something you cannot control, like genetics, is illogical. Anyone's pride is not worthy of a parade to advertise it, either."

I didn't see the word "pride" anywhere or hear anyone proclaiming pride. I used the term "gay pride" because it's traditional, originating, I assume, in a desire to cancel the shame that had been culturally imposed. Now that the culture has changed, the word is perhaps a relic that could be discarded, but it's not yet the case that everyone who finds himself to be gay is free of shame, and there's something to be said for tradition.

Renee said: "Honestly, it wasn't that bad. No corporate sponsors. Just people who come in support ina peaceful manner."

Maybe you were distracted by the cute Pomeranian, but the man on the other end of the leash was holding one end of a sign that read: "American Family Insurance/Proud Sponsor."

walter said: "[T]hey clearly need to get the word out if Ann encountered it through happenstance. So why not join the parade, Ann?"

I'm not good at keeping track of Madison events. I just stumble into them sometimes. People who care about events check Facebook and Isthmus and whatever. I prefer places on normal days. I can't imagine actually being one of the paraders... in any parade. 

8 posts before dawn.

It's one of those mornings! And, strangely enough, I got plenty of sleep last night. If "last" is the right word. The night is just ending.

IN THE COMMENTS: David invites us to commemorate the JFK assassination, and I reject the invitation.

"@Voxdotcom… has no idea of what Japanese popular culture is like, does it? Somebody needs to start calling this Vox-shaming, or something."

Says Moe Lane, linking to my post "Avril Lavigne picked a bad week to go all racist" and something David said in the comments: "If examined closely Japanese popular culture would explode the brain of the average political correctness warrior in the USA."

"If Vox wants to criticize cultural appropriation [then] it should find writers who are a little less provincial and a little more experienced with the culture in question," says Moe Lane, embedding "a not entirely atypical example... chosen partially because the artist (Kyary Pamyu Pamyu) is both popular and known for her adoption of Western styles and themes – but mostly because it is, by our standards, highly insane," and I have watched this astounding video, which had me alternately laughing and saying "Oh, no!"



That was truly mindbending... a great escape from the dreary, daily American chidings about what is and is not appropriate.

ADDED: In the comments yesterday Mary Beth also pointed to the "PonPonPon" which she said was "pretty popular on the internet despite its racism." ("Skip to the 34 second mark to see what I mean.")

"It's excellent art. Realistic. Ought to satisfy those who are tired of trite abstractions."

Said David, in the comments to this morning's post about the "Sleepwalker" statue — of the man in his panties — at Wellesley College.

Been there, done that:



That's Meade, getting statuesque with Duane Hanson's "Janitor" at the Milwaukee Art Museum. That thing dates back to 1973. Here's an article about the restoration of the "beloved" art work:

While on view, Terri lightly vacuums Janitor frequently, but there still is a certain amount of dirt and grime settled in. The very first thing we had to do was address how or if to clean the janitor’s clothing. We thought that it might be possible to take his clothes off and throw them in the conservator’s version of a washing machine, but that’s not the case. We discovered that Duane Hanson constructed the Janitor so that his clothes cannot be removed....

[Senior conservator Jim DeYoung] shared that over the years, parts of Janitor’s outfit have sadly gone missing to the wandering hands of Museum visitors. Jim discussed the ethics of honoring the originality of the artwork as it currently exists, or honoring the intentions of the artist.... For instance, concerning the missing articles in the janitor’s pockets, Jim and Terri felt secure in following their own skills and instinct to find comparable materials to replace the thefted items....

There was so much discussion back in the 70s about the value of Hanson's work, but at this point, no one bothers with this debate anymore. People just love it. Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe they've lost a sense of outrage at being amused — as comfortable museum-goers — at the weariness and dreariness of a workingman.

AND: Look at the magnificent grandeur of the woman — idealized and all head — lording it over the pitiful man. Some curator decided upon that juxtaposition.

Juan Williams thinks he's defending Obamacare by observing that it has no effect on him and the other members of the Sunday talk show pundit panel.

This is the sort of thing that a Republican would be pilloried for saying. It was yesterday's "Fox News Sunday," and the moderator Chris Wallace had just read a question tweeted by some guy named Skip. The question was "other than hope, what substantive argument do the ACA, Affordable Care Act, supporters have that the law will work as intended?" Juan Williams threw out a big word storm, but one line jumped out at me, and I will boldface it:

Mystery photo of the day.

IN THE COMMENTS: David looks ahead to the next photo in the series.



ADDED: The top picture is November 1951, my parents' failed attempt to make a photograph that could be used in a Christmas card. (I've tweaked the very dark original to make the image reasonably visible.) The second picture is September 1951, at Niagara Falls. For reference: I was born in January 1951. The other child is my older sister.

"We have become a world of squares."

David emails, answering my question "What has rectilinearity done to our minds?" (My question was based on an article about how modern life is beset by rectangles — buildings, rooms, tables, beds — unlike ancient human life which was full of circles.)

"I had the comments on for a while about a year ago..."

"... and I turned them off because I found myself doing so much writing over on the comments pages and because a few people were being abusive. I wanted to concentrate my writing on the front page," I wrote on April 8, 2005.

These days, I spend a lot of time reading and responding to email, which is really a displaced comments page and an even less "front page" kind of writing for me. I'm impressed by Judge Posner's very pro-comment attitude. So in honor of Judge Posner, I'm turning my comments back on.

"Try eating a couple of raisins."

A tip from a list of tips. Guess what the goal to be achieved is before you click through.

ADDED: David in the comments guesses longevity, which is wrong. I don't think commenter David is David Sedaris, but in the new David Sedaris book, Sedaris describes his father's formula for longevity:

The secret, he tells me, is to eat seven gin-soaked raisins a day.

“Blond or dark?” I asked.

“Doesn’t matter.”

“Could I possibly cut out the gin part? Marinate them in, I don’t know, coffee or something.”

“Do you want to live or don’t you?” he asked.

When I told my father about Dan’s prophecy [that the first person who’ll reach the age of two hundred has already been born], he said, “Aw, baloney. A twenty-year-old kid in Holland, what does he know?”

“He learned it in school.”

“No, he didn’t,” my father said. “The guy was just pulling your leg.” He had a similar opinion of the plastic bags hanging in Francine’s doorway [for keeping the flies away]. “It’s just a load of BS.”

“As opposed to seven gin-soaked raisins keeping you alive until you’re eighty-nine?”

“Hey,” he said, “those raisins work!”

A rally to repeal Wisconsin's "castle doctrine" law — citing Wisconsin version of the Trayvon Martin case.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports on a rally — with about 150 — that occurred on campus here in Madison last Tuesday.

[T]he March 3 killing of Bo Morrison, a 20-year-old from West Bend... came roughly a week after a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin, 17, in another disputed case of self-defense. Both young men were black and unarmed, which has ignited charges that the shootings were racially motivated.... At Tuesday’s event on Library Mall, organizer Dan Suarez of the International Socialist Organization called the two deaths “lynchings.”

“They were murdered because of the color of their skin,” Suarez declared. “We have been taught in the United States to be afraid of young black men.”

If you'd called something "unadultered complete nonsense"...

... would you highlight that phrase in a self-promoting ad?

You would if you were Wisconsin legislator Brett Hulsey, who's made himself the central character in his new ad against Governor Scott Walker. And the non-word "unadultered" is not the most embarrassing thing about the ad:

The ad continues with Hulsey saying, "I stood up to Gov. Walker. I went to his press conference and said, 'What you have just heard is unadultered [sic] complete nonsense.'"

... The governor did hold a news conference that day, but Hulsey never directly confronted him. What actually happened was that Hulsey waited until the governor had left the room, took over the podium and directed his comments to reporters.

ADDED: I Googled "unadultered" and the first hit took me to some unbelievably evil song lyrics apparently written by a band significant enough to have a Wikipedia page. I have no idea whether Hulsey is into this "Illinois-based hardcore punk, grindcore, and death metal band," but sometimes song lyrics give someone the idea that a non-word is a word. It can be embarrassing. For example, maybe you thought it made sense to call something "swonderful."

IN THE COMMENTS: David said:

Althouse speaks the pompatus of truth.

ADDED: Instapundit links with "WHEN ILLITERATE YAHOO STATE LEGISLATORS attack."

"Weiner is trying to insert himself..."

"... back into politics...."

IN THE COMMENTS: David writes:

And politics says: "That's enough, Anthony. Roll over and go back to sleep. I need some rest."

Anthony lies still for 10 minutes, then gets up, and tiptoes to his den. The computer is in sleep mode, but it awakens at his touch, just for him. He bites his lip as the screen bathes his hard but aging body in sallow light. A salty prick of blood flows from the lip. It's going to be a good night after all.

RELOCATED FROM ALTHOUSE2: Jean Shrimpton today.

"I’m not sure contentment is obtainable and I find the banality of modern life terrifying. I sometimes feel I’m damaged goods."

COMMENTS (Relocated):

rhhardin said...
Life isn't banal if you have a dog.

MAY 13, 2011 3:06:00 PM CDT
k*thy said...
More times, lately, I find comfort ordinary and, somewhat, anonymous.

MAY 13, 2011 3:17:00 PM CDT
AJ Lynch said...
Her frowning face physically resembles what she said in the quote.

MAY 13, 2011 4:54:00 PM CDT
AJ Lynch said...
I wonder why your blog got singled out?

MAY 13, 2011 4:54:00 PM CDT
traditionalguy said...
If Althouse was singled out, it was not for banality of modern life. My guess is that this downtime is only a test of Obama's new Political Emergency Preparedness System.

MAY 13, 2011 5:58:00 PM CDT
David said...
Being old is not too bad if being young was never your principal identity.

MAY 13, 2011 6:04:00 PM CDT
tim maguire said...
The banality of modern life is often boring, but terrifying?

Drama queen.

MAY 13, 2011 6:23:00 PM CDT