"Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices..."

NBC News reports.

The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York. The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is 'not a fan' of packing the court....

Last week, Biden announced the formation of a commission of liberals and conservatives to study the structure of the Supreme Court, including the number of justices and the length of their service.

"To study the structure" ≈ to quietly kill the idea. So Markey and Nadler are stepping on their President's subtle manipulation. Another way of putting that is they could see what Biden was doing, so now is precisely the time to get out in front of him.

ADDED: I'm strongly opposed to enlarging the Court. I'm just saying I can see Markey and Nadler's motivation.

FROM THE EMAIL: Rob writes:

Based on the flood of Republican emails in my inbox today, I wouldn’t discount fundraising as a significant motivation for the Markey/Nadler Court-packing bill. (I assume a mirror image of that deluge has hit every D or progressive inbox today.) As with abortion, both sides can raise prodigious amounts of money off the threat of Court-packing. The fact that decisive action is always “just another election cycle away” is a feature, not a bug.

"Behind Illicit Massage Parlors Lie a Vast Crime Network and Modern Indentured Servitude."

That's the headline in the NYT.

The frequently middle-aged women who work in parlors with names like Orchids of Asia and Rainbow Spa are often struggling to pay off high debts to family members, loan sharks, labor traffickers and lawyers who help them file phony asylum claims. In some cases, their passports are taken and their illegal immigration status keeps them further in the shadows, with some of them rotated every 10 days to two weeks between spas operated by the same owners. Forced to pay for their own supplies and even their own condoms, many women must sleep on the same massage tables where they service customers and cook on hot plates in cramped kitchens or on back steps.

“We stopped thinking about just cages, bars and chains as the means of coercion,” said John Richmond, the State Department’s top anti-trafficking official. “They are using nonviolent forms of coercion.”...

So it is the coercion that is interwoven with illegal immigration.

One reason the Asian massage parlors remain so poorly understood is the extreme reluctance of the women to speak with the police and even with their own lawyers.

“Even though I’ve represented many, many women arrested in unlicensed massage parlors, because of the level of distrust of people working, almost all immigrants, almost all undocumented, they don’t trust even their attorneys enough to let them know what’s happened to them,” Ms. Latimer said.

There are slaves, kept among us, invisibly.

IN THE COMMENTS: Rob said:

Phony asylum claims, you say? Please, NYT, tell us more. We didn’t know such an animal existed.

"In October 2016, Ron Hiers and his wife, Carla, feeling despondent after years of addiction, had made a suicide pact to get high until they were dead, and ended up passed out by a bus stop in Memphis."

"A bystander live-streamed footage of the couple, and the video of them being mocked and laughed at was viewed by hundreds of thousands of people."

From "How Do You Recover After Millions Have Watched You Overdose?/Amid an opioid crisis, police and strangers with cameras are posting raw images of drug users passed out. For those whose bleakest moments now live online, life is never the same" (NYT).

The NYT embedded the video, so lots more people are seeing it now, including me. I'll refrain from embedding it, but I'll just say that the man and woman have fallen into ludicrous and humiliating positions on the sidewalk, and the passersby are circling around them, taking video and laughing at them. It's a very disturbing display of human despair and cruelty. The NYT doesn't mention it, but the man and woman on the sidewalk are white, and the people laughing at them are black.

IN THE COMMENTS: Rob said:

If Breitbart had embedded that, the Times would’ve accused them of racism. And they might have been right.

"Can someone do an image of the Gadsden flag with the words 'Don't Meddle With Me'?"

I asked, in the comments this morning's post about Trump's all-caps tweet, which ends with me saying "Meddling. We openly meddle and yet demand not to be meddled with."

The commenter Rob came through:



Thanks!

Asking Philip Roth to take #MeToo seriously.

At the NYT, Charles McGrath interviews the venerable novelist, who says a lot of words, but does not answer the question:

C.M. One of your recurrent themes has been male sexual desire — thwarted desire, as often as not — and its many manifestations. What do you make of the moment we seem to be in now, with so many women coming forth and accusing so many highly visible men of sexual harassment and abuse?

P.R. I am, as you indicate, no stranger as a novelist to the erotic furies. Men enveloped by sexual temptation is one of the aspects of men’s lives that I’ve written about in some of my books. Men responsive to the insistent call of sexual pleasure, beset by shameful desires and the undauntedness of obsessive lusts, beguiled even by the lure of the taboo — over the decades, I have imagined a small coterie of unsettled men possessed by just such inflammatory forces they must negotiate and contend with. I’ve tried to be uncompromising in depicting these men each as he is, each as he behaves, aroused, stimulated, hungry in the grip of carnal fervor and facing the array of psychological and ethical quandaries the exigencies of desire present. I haven’t shunned the hard facts in these fictions of why and how and when tumescent men do what they do, even when these have not been in harmony with the portrayal that a masculine public-relations campaign — if there were such a thing — might prefer. I’ve stepped not just inside the male head but into the reality of those urges whose obstinate pressure by its persistence can menace one’s rationality, urges sometimes so intense they may even be experienced as a form of lunacy. Consequently, none of the more extreme conduct I have been reading about in the newspapers lately has astonished me.

Maybe you forgot the question by the end of all that!

The question is whether he has come to understand a woman's point of view that has become so widely publicized in the past year, and he talks and talks, and he never says one thing about a woman.

It's as if he's telling us by showing us that women are nothing at all. They're the background against which we are able to see what a man is.

What do you make of the moment we seem to be in now...? Nothing!

IN THE COMMENTS: Rob said:

The question wasn't about a woman's point of view, it was about male sexual desire and its manifestations. That's precisely what Roth answered.

The question was an invitation to see male behavior in terms of the many highly publicized accounts given by women. This is a woman's point of view. His answer makes the women invisible. He says nothing about how the women have told their stories. He says there's no "moment" to make something of as far as he's concerned, because he's been looking deeply into the sexual behavior of men. He's already told the story... and more... and better. There's nothing new here for him. In fact, we ought to read his old books, because he's been way ahead of us for decades.

"The specter of Dickens’s ranting spinster — spurned and embittered in her crumbling wedding dress, plotting her elaborate revenge — casts a long shadow over every woman who dares to get mad."

Writes Leslie Jamison — in "I Used to Insist I Didn’t Get Angry. Not Anymore. On female rage" (NYT) — invoking Hillary Clinton:

In “What Happened,” her account of the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton describes the pressure not to come across as angry during the course of her entire political career — “a lot of people recoil from an angry woman,” she writes — as well as her own desire not to be consumed by anger after she lost the race, “so that the rest of my life wouldn’t be spent like Miss Havisham from Charles Dickens’s ‘Great Expectations,’ rattling around my house obsessing over what might have been.”

Miss Havisham was "rattling around" over a marriage that never happened, so it's irksome to see her used as Hillary Clinton's point of reference. Hillary Clinton is all about a marriage that did take place, and it would be interesting to know what she would have been without Bill.

But the topic here is female anger.

If an angry woman makes people uneasy, then her more palatable counterpart, the sad woman, summons sympathy more readily. She often looks beautiful in her suffering: ennobled, transfigured, elegant. Angry women are messier. Their pain threatens to cause more collateral damage. It’s as if the prospect of a woman’s anger harming other people threatens to rob her of the social capital she has gained by being wronged. We are most comfortable with female anger when it promises to regulate itself, to refrain from recklessness, to stay civilized.

That's the discipline. If you're set on looking beautiful and commanding empathy, you've accepted the subordination and made yourself small. I think this is an important topic, and I like the photo illustrations at the link, but the essay is not to my taste. Quoting Hillary. Quoting this wretched nonsense from Audre Lorde: "I have suckled the wolf’s lip of anger and I have used it for illumination, laughter, protection, fire in places where there was no light, no food, no sisters, no quarter." Wolf's lip??

Here's the whole Lorde essay, in case you think more context will help.

Wait a minute! I googled "wolf's lip" and got some major help from Urban Dictionary ("Picture the side of a dog's mouth, the back part with wrinkly skin and folds of dark moist flesh"). Did the NYT understand what it was quoting?!

IN THE COMMENTS: Rob said:

"[T]he sad woman, summons sympathy more readily. She often looks beautiful in her suffering: ennobled, transfigured, elegant." Now we know why Cory Booker publicly anguished about hurting and having tears in his eyes.

From last night's Cory Booker comments thread, Hoodlum Doodlum says "This one goes out to Corey and T-Bone" and points us here:



You might be asking, yes, but who's T-Bone. Answer: "Cory Booker’s Imaginary Friend" (National Review).

"If Bill Clinton hadn’t twisted my arm, I would have stayed at Wisconsin forever."

Bill Clinton twisted Donna Shalala's arm, according to Shalala, who was the chancellor here at UW-Madison until she became Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Services. Upon leaving that job, she became president at the University of Miami. She's still there, where the UW football team will play Miami in the Orange Bowl on December 30th, which is why there's an article about her today in the Wisconsin State Journal.

Shalala says her "loyalties are sort of half-split" — loyalties to the 2 football teams.

We're given a truncated list of famous alumni from the 2 schools. From Miami:

... actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, singer and songwriter Gloria Estefan, former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus of Kenosha, Pro Football Hall of Famers Jim Kelly and Michael Irvin, and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

From Wisconsin:

... Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, author Joyce Carol Oates, Sierra Club founder John Muir, architect Frank Lloyd Wright, astronaut Jim Lovell and John Bardeen, the only two-time recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

As long as we're catching up with Donna Shalala and thinking about Bill Clinton twisting her arm, here's a CNN report from September 11, 1998, "Clinton apologizes to Cabinet":

One of the participants, speaking on condition of anonymity, said... Shalala told Clinton that women feel a special bond with him because of his policies, but they are especially sympathetic toward his wife and daughter.... Shalala listened to Clinton apologize, ask for forgiveness and promise to improve as a person. "To say it is one thing," she was quoted as saying, "to demonstrate it is another."...

IN THE COMMENTS: mockturtle said...

Sounds to me like physical abuse, man vs. woman, ergo, sexual assault.

Rob said...

"If you're a president, they let you do it, you can do anything--twist their arm."

Megyn Kelly's alcoholic metaphor promoting her new morning show.

"Hoda and Kathie Lee love wine. The ‘Today’ show is mostly coffee. I would say if you had to put a drink on my show, it would be a mimosa. There’s stuff that’s a little naughty. Stuff in there that’s good for you. Some stuff in there that’s fun and sweet. But... with some effervescence."

Explained Megyn Kelly, quoted in "Megyn Kelly Is Ready for Her Morning Closeup/The former Fox News host says her daily NBC morning show, which starts Monday, is one she was 'born to do.' Others aren’t so sure" (NYT).

(A mimosa is half orange juice, half champagne... usually bad orange juice and bad champagne, of course.)

IN THE COMMENTS: Rob said: "Given Trump's earlier comment, Kelly was loath to liken her program to a Bloody Mary."

This is my last real weekend — weekend weekend.

It's not that I'm not going to work ever again, but I'm never going to have work scheduled on a weekday/weekend schedule once classes end this coming Thursday. That means this is my last chance to feel the feeling that is The Weekend. Not that I'm not working this weekend. I am. But in my own way, on my own schedule.

IN THE COMMENTS: Rob links to this:

Did you notice that Hillary Clinton gave a speech on "American exceptionalism" yesterday?

"I don't like the term. I'll be honest with you....  I don't think it's a very nice term. We're exceptional; you're not.... I never liked the term. And perhaps that's because I don't have a very big ego and I don't need terms like that. Honestly.... I watch Obama every once in a while saying 'American exceptionalism.' it's [makes a face]. I don't like the term. Because... I want to take everything back from the world that we've given them. We've given them so much. On top of taking it back, I don't want to say, 'We're exceptional. We're more exceptional.' Because essentially we're saying we're more outstanding than you. 'By the way, you've been eating our lunch for the last 20 years, but we're more exceptional than you.' I don't like the term. I never liked it. When I see these politicians get up [and say], 'the American exceptionalism'... I think you're insulting the world. And you, know... if you're German, or you're from Japan, or you're from China, you don't want to have people saying that. I never liked the expression. And I see a lot of good patriots get up and talk about Amer—you can think it, but I don't think we should say it. We may have a chance to say it in the not-too-distant future. But even the, I wouldn't say it because when I take back the jobs, and when I take back all that money and we get all our stuff, I'm not going to rub it in. Let's not rub it in. Let's not rub it in. But I never liked that term."

Oh, that was Trump, of course. How far did you get before it became obvious? He said that back in April 2015.

Why am I quoting this now instead of quoting Hillary Clinton gave a speech on "American exceptionalism" in Cincinnati yesterday? Because all the news today is about Donald Trump. I know Hillary gave that "American exceptionalism" speech yesterday, but can you find a news story about it?

I'm looking at the front page of the NYT and there's nothing about Hillary — and plenty about Trump — in the whole top screen. I do a search-the-page for "Hillary" to find something, anything, and I find, down at the bottom, in tiny print: "News Analysis: Trailing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Turns to Political Gymnastics." That's about Donald Trump! Further down: "The 2016 Race: Could ‘a Better Trump’ Be Leading Hillary Clinton Right Now?" That's about Donald Trump!

There's only one other thing, in the "Recommended for You" list at #5: "ON THE RUNWAY/Fashion Extends Its Support for Hillary Clinton." Ugh! She gave a speech on "American Exceptionalism" and the only news on the front page of nytimes.com is non-news from 2 days ago about how people in the fashion industry are doing something utterly predictable. And some fashion designer opines about Hillary's clothes: "She’s very tailored now. But I think she could go more feminine, and flowy."

Oh, yeah, well, how about some feminine and flowy American exceptionalism?

Did Hillary say anything in Cincinnati? Is it too boring to memorialize in a brief squib of a news article? Was it embarrassing or off-the-mark in some way?

I searched the NYT website for Hillary Clinton American exceptionalism, and I came up with an article, published yesterday: "Hillary Clinton, Swiping at Donald Trump, Argues U.S. Is Vital World Leader." It's off the website front page already, but it does exist. And yet the main point seems to be about Donald Trump. Maybe that's why it's not on the front page. The front page is already overloaded with Donald Trump material.

Here's the Hillary quote about American exceptionalism the NYT puts in paragraph #3:

"If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this: The United States is an exceptional nation."

Why does everything sound like a lie? Compare the Donald Trump quote that begins this post. The words do seem to be coming unfiltered from his brain.

That's... exceptional.

IN THE COMMENTS: The very first comment comes from Rob:

Hillary chose her words carefully: "if there's one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way . . . ." In fact, there is not one core belief that has guided her--unless you count ambition as a core belief.

MORE IN THE COMMENTS: So I answer Rob: "Rob, are you a lawyer? Good catch!"

And Rob says: "Ann, I knew Hillary at Yale Law. We go way back."

David Begley erupts: "As a classmate of Hillary's you can't leave it at that! Throw us a bone."

Rob says: "I was a year ahead of her, David. She was fine at law school, and far less militant and angry than several of the women there. Subsequent developments like her reported behavior on the impeachment staff, her commodities trading, her role in quashing bimbo eruptions and of course her private server have all seemed unlike the person I thought I knew, and apparently didn't know very well."

A witty allusion to H.V. Kaltenborn.

For reasons that need not be explained here, today's post titled "Out-olding the nouveau old" eventually gets around to the topic of what Holden Caulfield ate in "Catcher in Rye," and I quote him saying:

When I’m out somewhere, I generally just eat a Swiss cheese sandwich and a malted milk. It isn’t much, but you get quite a lot of vitamins in the malted milk. H. V. Caulfield. Holden Vitamin Caulfield.

This prompts commenter Rob to say — and I have no reason to doubt the truth of this:

I'm guessing there's damned few readers today of The Catcher in the Rye who pick up that in talking about "H.V. Caulfield" Salinger was making a witty allusion to H.V. Kaltenborn.

At the link, we learn of the radio commenter who was born in Milwaukee in 1878 and lived until 1965. Apparently, Kaltenborn could speak vividly and intelligently without a script for hours. I liked this anecdote about him and Dizzy Dean: