Terry Bradshaw is trending on Twitter because, apparently, he repeatedly referred to the fatness of Andy Reid.

Terry Bradshaw’s intrusive thoughts on their way to tell him to call Andy Reid fat multiple times during the post game interview pic.twitter.com/NZXWy1VSbb

— 🥶❄️TheNotoriousNeer🏂☃️ (@Notorious_Neer) February 13, 2023

I selected that tweet in case you'd also — or rather — talk about the halftime show. What were those puffed-up dancers supposed to represent? Rihanna's pregnancy? The UFO/balloon? Snowmen? Polar teddy bears?

I only half-watched the halftime show. I'm sensitive to vicarious acrophobia — basophobia, really — and I thought the sound quality was so bad that that the music could only be "heard" by those who already had the music implanted in their head. 

What, exactly, was the worse thing Bradshaw said? I think it was — directly to Reid, after the game was won — "Big guy. Let me get the big guy in here. C'mon, waddle over here." 

IN THE COMMENTS: Jim puts it more graphically: "The puffed up dancers represented her spouse’s semen. She in her red outfit represented her ovum. This was clearly a biology lesson."

Is there an "adultification bias" that "uniquely plagues Black girls"?

I'm reading "The Columbus mayor called Ma’Khia Bryant a ‘young woman.’ Here’s why people are angry. Some said it exemplified ‘adultification bias’ against the Black 16-year-old girl who was fatally shot by police" (The Lily/WaPo): 

Earlier that night, Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther (D) took to Twitter to share news of the killing, calling Ma’Khia a “young woman.” 

Replies quickly poured in, noting that Ma’Khia was a child — not an adult. At the news conference a few hours later, Ginther acknowledged Ma’Khia was a child: “The city of Columbus lost a 15-year-old girl today,” he said. “This young 15-year-old girl will never be coming home.” 

But some still took to social media to criticize his initial characterization of Ma’Khia, calling it “adultification bias” — a form of discrimination that uniquely plagues Black girls, leading them to be perceived by adults as less innocent and more adult-like than their White peers, according to a widely covered 2017 Georgetown study. 

It may be that black kids are often regarded as older than white kids of the same age. When there's an emergency, like the one in the case of Ma’Khia Bryant, those who need to help can only judge by what they see. We've seen the video, and Bryant looks like a powerful attacker about to slaughter someone who looks utterly defenseless. 

But the question of how to talk about the dead person afterwards is different. City officials ought to be circumspect and use careful language. But what is the best way to refer to a 16-year-old female? I would have thought "young woman" is the most respectful locution and that "girl" for someone that age is questionable. 

But I understand the desire to encourage the police to see minors in a different light from adults.

Amy is garnering and I'm raising my eyebrow.

It's like Politico is nudging me twice, saying Althouse, get on it, you must blog about Amy Coney Barrett getting paid to write a book. They use that word I have a tag about — garner — and a silly incorrect image:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last pick for the Supreme Court, has also sold a book — garnering a $2 million advance for a tome about how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule, according to three publishing industry sources. The figure was “an eye-raising amount” for a Supreme Court justice and likely the most since book deals won by Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor, one of the people added. 

"The people" are "three people familiar with the deal." I think people in publishing should know better than to say "an eye-raising amount." The expression is "eyebrow-raising." 

From Merriam-Webster's "Learner's Dictionary":

To raise eyebrows means to cause other people to react with surprise or mild disapproval. To raise an/your eyebrow means to move your eyebrows up in a way that shows surprise or mild disapproval.

What the hell would "eye-raising" even be?!

FROM THE EMAIL: Jim writes:

Perhaps "eye raising" now means something so attention-grabbing that it causes someone to look up from their phone.

Beyond Obama's blue pill: folksingers!

What medical treatments will the government approve, in the future, for the aging population of America? Two years ago, President Obama let it slip that cheap painkillers would supervene more expensive cures. And here's a new, low-price palliative for the oldies:

Every week, three music therapists from MJHS Hospice and Palliative Care crisscross the city and suburbs to sing songs to the dying. With guitars strapped to their backs, a flute or tambourine and a songbook jammed in their backpacks, they play music for more than 100 patients, in housing projects, in nursing homes and even in a lavish waterfront home. The time for chemotherapy and radiation is over.

The music begins: a song to hold death at bay, a song to embrace death, or to praise God. A Vietnam veteran asks for a song in Vietnamese. One man asked only for songs with death in the lyrics, to force his family to talk to him about the future. He was ready to talk about it. They weren’t. So the therapist sang Queen’s version of “Another One Bites the Dust.” “Amazing Grace” and other spiritual songs are most often requested just before death.

It's a jobs program for sensitive young women who might feel uncomfortable busking on the city streets, waiting for cold-hearted businessmen to drop a dollar in their guitar cases. The government will drop the dollar in, and the elderly patients will be too polite (and also physically unable) to walk away.

Welcome to the hospice, where the strumming of Joan Baez wannabes will prepare you for death. They will ease your "final transition." You'll be ready to die before they're ready to leave.  If you hang out too long at the hospice, be forewarned: When you've heard "Amazing Grace" 10,000 times, you've only just begun.

Can't we please pick our own music? Recorded music played by virtuouso musicians? Maybe Beethoven's 6th Symphony.... or "The Man in the Box"....



IN THE COMMENTS: Jim said:

I was on the faculty in a music department with a music therapy program for ~25 years, and taught a couple of courses to students majoring in MT during that time.

The MT professors/practitioners have been relentlessly pursuing their dream of obtaining funding from medical insurance and the public schools. They point to a growing body of MT research - all of it advocacy, most of it incompetent, much of it just silly - to support their lobbying for the loot.

ALSO: When you get to that hospice and the folksinger arrives, remember John Belushi. (Suggestion via RLC in the email and Sixty Grit in the comments.)

The White House, Washington... White House, Washington... WHITEHOUSE.

What's going on here?


(Photo by Stephen Crowley.)

The commenter EDH noticed this craziness in the photograph on the previous post:

As a photographer, maybe Althouse can explain why the NYT photo editor didn't crop that front-page, above-the-fold photo of Napolitano, but instead shared the frame to included a widescreen video monitor next to her displaying the single word "WHITEHOUSE" while she's standing behind a podium that says "The White House - Washington" and in front of a sign with a picture of the White House that says "White House - Washington"?

Is this supposed to symbolize the new "belt and suspenders" approach in action?

Here's the article the photo appears to illustrate:

Obama Details New Policies in Response to Terror Threat

By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday ordered intelligence agencies to take a series of steps to streamline how terrorism threats are pursued and analyzed, saying the government had to respond aggressively to the failures that allowed a Nigerian man to ignite an explosive mixture on a commercial jetliner on Christmas Day.

Obama, eh? Well, he's not in the picture. Is all that "White House" business supposed to equal Obama?

The president also directed the Homeland Security Department to speed the installation of $1 billion in advanced-technology equipment for the screening of passengers, including body scanners at American airports and to work with international airports to see that they upgrade their own equipment to protect passengers on flights headed to the United States.

Janet Napolitano is the head of that Department, of course. Oddly, her name doesn't even come up in the article. What is the NYT doing here? The text seems to hide her inside of the name of the department, and the photograph shunts her to the side, with an unnamed man (Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan) backing her up, and White House signs buffeting her all around.

Compare Drudge's treatment of Napolitano, today (and yesterday):

Ah, poor Janet!

IN THE COMMENTS: Jim wrote:

I think the photograph is a not-so-subtle statement:

Janet Napolitano IS the White House.

Obama's game has been to let Obama appear to be "the adult in the room" by correcting and re-correcting Napolitano's repeated stupidity.

The editor here is saying: Hey Obama, we're not THAT stupid. She speaks for you, and we're a little sick of the game of you're playing. Napolitano speaks for you even when she says something stupid. We're not playing along any more.

When even the NYT editors make a point of telling Obama "You can no more disown Napolitano than you can disown your grandmother," you know you're in deep trouble...

Barack Nobamatano.