"No one thinks, at least not yet, that a robot should be able to compete for Olympic medals or be eligible for Nobel prizes."

"Protecting innovation by limiting awards to humans makes sense. But music charts are supposed to measure popularity among consumers. Perhaps AI bots could be assigned their own category. Labeling works as AI-assisted or -generated is a sensible nod to transparency. Beyond that, consumers should be left to decide what it is they want to listen to — even when, just like a dream, the music is not what it seems."

I'm reading "Who’s that bot? An AI cover of Madonna spurs industry changes. Instead of blocking AI-assisted songs from the charts, require disclosure and protect creators" by the Editorial Board of the Washington Post.

That's a gift link, so you can read about what it was about the artificiality of that one cover of "Like a Prayer" that stirred up serious opposition to artificiality in pop music. To my ear, things have been unlistenably artificial for decades. People have developed a taste for robotic singing, and the robots keep giving them more of what they like. The machine that is Spotify serves me music from the 1960s and the 1940s, because it can see that I respond to the human voice, but younger people do not, and it doesn't matter what happens with the various prizes. The algorithm will give them what touches them, even if we elders think they have bad taste.

Back in the 1960s, my father expressed the sincere opinion that the rock music I was listening to was not music because of the electric instruments and the voices processed through microphones.

"As we see a rise in fascism, there is a direct correlation with thinness to make women take up less space."

So said the actress Hannah Einbinder:

Hollywood actress Hannah Einbinder blames “fascism” for women wanting to be slim.

“As we see a rise in fascism, there is a direct correlation with thinness to make women take up less space.” pic.twitter.com/0VTlRFqe2e

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) August 30, 2026

Of course, she's getting trashed on X. She's "trending." That's why I saw it. I don't really know her, but I see she's highly praised for her role in "Hacks," and also that she's the daughter of Laraine Newman.

Anyway, it's cheap and easy to go after an actress who expresses any opinion that seems to require intelligence and background knowledge. I would prefer to isolate what she said and explore the various issues there:

1. There's a broad, casual use of the word "fascism" that's like the way Seinfeld used "Nazi" in "The Soup Nazi." You can argue that the word should be used more precisely, but it doesn't mean the person who's using it broadly is a fool.

2.  Correlation is not causation, and she only said "correlation." She intensified it with "direct" — "There is a direct correlation" — but Einbinder was clever enough to protect herself with the first-rate weasel word "correlation."

3. Did the actual historical fascists idealize female thinness? I don't think so. 

"The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy."

"The Iranians are clearly negotiating skilfully or very skilfully not negotiating... a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership."

Said Chancellor Friedrich Merz, quoted in "Is German troop withdrawal start of US uncoupling from Europe? After President Trump took offence at Friedrich Merz’s Iran war comments, Donald Tusk warned that infighting was a bigger threat to Nato than its external enemies" (London Times).

Not a typo for "Donald Trump." There really is a Donald Tusk in this story. He's the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk. His mild-mannered contribution to the debate is: "The greatest threat to the transatlantic community is not its external enemies, but the ongoing disintegration of our alliance."

Last paragraph of the article:

"Reinforce the academic core of the university; don’t allow classes to be dominated by open laptops or other devices; do more to ensure that people do not self-censor; respect the ideals of free speech and academic freedom; 'be human.'"

Those are among the "smart and sensible recommendations" to be found in Yale's "Report of the Committee on Trust in Higher Education" according to "Yale Has Come Up With a Surefire Way to Make a Terrible Situation Worse" (NYT). That's written by the president of Wesleyan University, Michael S. Roth.

Sorry, I'm having a Marx Brothers flashback: "The Dean is furious! He's waxing wroth!"/"Is Roth out there, too? Tell Roth to wax the Dean for a while."

So what is Roth waxing wroth about with this anodyne committee report? 

The committee claims that in 2016, “departing from its traditional emphasis on the creation and dissemination of knowledge, Yale expanded its mission statement to include ‘improving the world today,’ educating ‘aspiring leaders worldwide,’ and fostering ‘an ethical, interdependent and diverse community.’”

It's weird to make a show of retreating from something so mild and vague. But Roth paraphrases the rejected mission as a matter of "independent thought, a commitment to truth even when it’s inconvenient and a focus on the creation of truly democratic citizens." Is that what the Trump administration has been "punishing" and what Yale is trying to be self-defensive about? 

The notion that Swalwell was "flirty."

I'm seeing this inane word "flirty" in the context of Swalwell's downfall.

In the Politico article "'I fell for it:' Gallego gives emotional remarks following Swalwell sexual assault allegations/The Arizona Democratic senator said he regrets not seeing the signs that his colleague was “a predator'" (Politico).

“I let this man into my family … it hurts me that this man hurt a lot of people,” [Senator Ruben] Gallego, who chaired Swalwell’s 2020 presidential campaign, said in emotional remarks where he at times appeared on the verge of tears.

While Gallego conceded he had long heard rumblings that Swalwell was “flirty,” he insisted he was unaware of the severity of the charges being lodged against Swalwell by former staffers — including rape....

The NYT has "Gallego Dismissed Rumors of a ‘Flirty’ Swalwell, Highlighting a Culture of Silence/The admission by Senator Ruben Gallego that he had heard, but disbelieved, rumors about Eric Swalwell and women showed the attitude on Capitol Hill toward men accused of behaving badly." 

Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, acknowledged on Tuesday that he had long heard rumors that Representative Eric Swalwell was “flirty” with women, but had allowed his longtime friendship with the California Democrat to cloud his judgment and never said or did anything about it.

I could give you many more links to reports of Gallego saying "flirty" to distance and absolve himself of knowledge of anything serious Swalwell may have done.

Nothing I found gave any substance to the characterization "flirty," which sounds like a quality you'd attribute to a school girl or a low-status woman.

When has a man ever been called "flirty"? Why would you call a powerful man flirty? I can only think that you're going out of your way to avoid saying "creepy" or "predatory" or one of those other words that are normally flung at men. Did Swalwell go up to women and say things like "Ooh, I like your dress" — things like that — and only things like that? If not, to say "flirty" is to continue to hide your part in covering for the sexual abuses of your colleagues.

"The problem is less a 'boys will be boys' tolerance than a sense of resignation among politicians, staff and other members of official Washington that powerful, ambitious men are built differently."

Writes Michelle Cottle, in "How Many People Heard About Swalwell and Did Nothing?" (NYT).

Cottle does not delve into this "built differently" hypothesis or the reasons why people believe it and choose to condone bad behavior. She seems to hope to light a fire under these weaker people and motivate them to oppose the "powerful, ambitious men" who — supposedly — are fueled by sexual desire. 

Maybe she doesn't delve into the hypothesis because she thinks it's true and self-evident. Maybe she's too puritanical to open up the subject. "Built differently." Say it clearly and explicitly. When I was a child, circa 1960, I asked my mother how babies were born. That was long ago, but I remember her answer verbatim: "Well, you know how men and women are built differently."

Can we please grow up and say it bluntly? There's no reason to be polite here. Powerful, ambitious men are built differently... the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. We're diminishing ourselves if we filter out the men who have it. Look at JFK. Look at Trump. And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders.

That's not my personal belief. That's the hypothesis Cottle gestures at, and I'm just putting it bluntly. Maybe you can put it more bluntly, so I'll turn the conversation over to you.

"Collectivism" — he spoke the word, as if a wedding vow.

Mamdani said it, he highlighted it: "We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism." He promised it. He attributed warmth to it.

The link goes to my post yesterday with that quote as the title. In the comments, I wrote: "He's saying the words that have been left unsaid in the past. In that way, he's like Trump."

Who are the other American politicians who might have said "collectivism" — in a positive way, not as a way of criticizing somebody else? Bernie Sanders, who swore in Mamdani, doesn't use that word.

This blog has a 22-year archive, so I did a search to see how "collectivism" has figured into our discourse. I found 14 items, and I don't think any of them count as a positive use of the word in the style of Zoran Mamdami. 

Here are all the past occurrences of "collectivism" on this blog, in chronological order:

"We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani: "We'll replace rugged individualism with collectivism" pic.twitter.com/dhUqGm2X26

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 1, 2026

He really said that. It's not AI. I checked. From the transcript of the inaugural speech:

"What type of question is that, dude? My guy, how do I assess this season? We just lost! How do you think I assess it? You tell me. What's a loss? We lost. How do you assess it? It's a loss. We lost."

I asked Manny Machado how he would assess the 2025 season. Here is what he said to me. @CBS8 | #FightForTheFaithful #Postseason #Padres pic.twitter.com/es85lKSj99

— Jake Garegnani (@JakeGaregnani) October 3, 2025

Thanks to Manny Machado for making me remember my old "clear speech" tag.

ADDED: I felt like I hadn't used it in a long time, but clicking on the tag now, I see I use it a lot. I like when people speak very directly. Using the tag, for me, is like giving an award. I acknowledge achievement in clear speech.

"When I heard the tragic news, I said, ‘I wonder who he was.’ And then all of a sudden, this overwhelming... sense of sorrow and kind of renewal."

"And I thought, I gotta learn about this guy. And the more I learned about him, I thought, this guy's a modern day Saint Paul. He was a missionary, he's an evangelist, he's a hero. He's one, I think, that knew what Jesus meant when he said: The truth will set you free.... Now, I understand he was pretty blunt and he was pretty direct. He didn't try to avoid any controversy. He didn't even try to avoid confrontation. The difference is the way, the mode, the style that he did it, always with respect. And not only was that a gracious... virtuous thing to do, it's effective, 'cuz when your opponents see this guy respects me, we kinda disagree here, but he kinda enjoys me, and he's thanking me for being here, and he's telling me he appreciates the trust I have in him in sharing my views. I thought: This guy can teach us something."

Said Cardinal Dolan:

Cardinal Dolan says he spent the past week studying Charlie Kirk’s life, and the more he learned, the more he saw him as a modern-day Saint Paul.

A fearless missionary, a passionate evangelist, and a true hero.

“When I heard the tragic news, I said, ‘I wonder who he was.’ And… pic.twitter.com/p77aAPOQGB

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 19, 2025

I want to relate this to a post I wrote the day after the assassination that some readers objected to but that I defended as "as a serious invitation to contemplate Kirk as a saint."

I knew at the time this question was complicated for Catholics because of their official procedure for canonization, and I observe that Cardinal Dolan — an excellent speaker — avoids directly declaring Charlie Kirk a "saint." He doesn't say "Saint Charlie," but he does declare Kirk "a modern day Saint Paul" — and "a missionary," "an evangelist," and "a hero." I'm not Catholic, and I don't know where the official line is, but the Cardinal seems to be stepping forthrightly up to the line. I think Cardinal Dolan knows exactly what he's saying and deploys clear language perfectly. 

"They said the film ['Barbie'] promoted homosexuality and insulted the image of women."

Said the mayor of Noisy-le-Sec, France, quoted in "Muslim youths shut down Barbie screening for ‘promoting homosexuality’/The incident in a Paris suburb plays into anxiety about cultural conflict in France, whose government says Islamists may be trying to undermine society." 

This article is in the London Times, which I subscribe to and would like to trust to report the relevant facts, but I can't figure out what the "Muslim youths" did that shut down the Barbie screening. We're told there was an "incident" but not what it was and why it was enough to shut down what was to have been a free outdoor screening. The article quickly moves to the topic of "widespread anxiety" about Muslims "impos[ing] their traditions on French life."

The mayor is quoted saying "An incident at Noisy has been taken over by the far-right fringe to stigmatise a neighbourhood." If the "far-right" is spinning the incident, tell us what is the left-wing or moderate spin? Is not detailing what happened the best you can do? As for the mayor, he made a point of saying that "he had not mentioned the religion of the youths."

With 2 great search terms — Noisy-le-Sec and Barbie — I easily found an article in the Brussels Signal – which some sources identify as right wing — "French mayor cancels Barbie film screening due to threats of 'disruption.'" Here, we find more details, but word "Muslim" does not even appear:

"It’s essential to normalize 'no' and understand that no one should be forced to justify something they simply don’t want to do."

"We live in a society where 'no' is often seen as rude or selfish, but this needs to change. Each person has their own reasons, preferences, and limits, and all of this must be respected without judgment."

Said Jeniffer Castro, who has filed a lawsuit, quoted in "Flyer who went viral after refusing to give seat to crying child sues airline, passenger who filmed her" (NY Post).

It's important to remember that you do not need to articulate your reasons or even understand that you have any reasons. You can say "no" and nothing more. 

"If anything, it is a very effective form of antifascist economic policy," said Zohran Mamdani, asked to describe "Zohranomics."

Quoted in "The Case for Zohranomics/As some Wall Street billionaires melt down over Zohran Mamdani’s policy platform, a prominent progressive economist argues that it meets the moment."

ZM continues: "We are at a moment where the crisis of economic security, of affordability, that comes with basic questions of dignity and identity are being used by the far right in ways that fuel the return of fascist tendencies. I think that having an agenda that is laser-focussed on the needs of ordinary people is what we need, and that is basically where the Democrats fell flat last year. At the federal level and the global level, we are dealing with the consequences of that lack of vision right now."

I ran to Grok where my second prompt was: "Don't just restate it. I can read it. I can understand it as a series of sentences. But I regard it as empty of meaning. So tell me, quickly, what is there of substance. No bullshit."

I got this: "Anti-fascist economics means policies that ensure economic security—fair wages, affordable housing, healthcare—to prevent the far right from exploiting people's struggles. It’s about meeting basic needs to stop fascism’s appeal. The Democrats failed at this, leading to political consequences. That’s the core."

Even shorter: "Anti-fascist economics: policies ensuring economic security to counter far-right extremism. Democrats failed, causing political fallout." That's Grok. The idea is to give people so much that they won't want to change to anything else. Right now they're so deprived that they do want radical change. 

"We want diversity of opinion. We don't want diversity of facts. And how do we train and teach our kids to distinguish between those things?"

"That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media. By the way, it will require some government, I believe, some government regulatory constraints around some of these business models in a way that's consistent with the First Amendment, but that also says, look, there is a difference between these platforms letting all voices be heard versus a business model that elevates the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence...."

Said Barack Obama, in a conversation with a historian a few days ago. Video at the link.

So it seems he thinks it's "the big task of social media" to teach children to distinguish between fact and opinion. But what does it mean to say "We don't want diversity of facts"? Does it mean you don't want differences of opinion about what the facts are?

It must, because facts are facts. There is no diversity of facts. Whatever is true is true, even if not one human being knows the truth. The facts are out there, to be found, and you can think you've found the facts and be wrong. There's a sense in which to say "We don't want diversity of facts" is to say we want to be able to be able to cling to mistaken findings of fact and even to silence those who want to continue to search for the truth.

I'm irritated by how casually Obama dropped in "By the way, it will require some government." Perhaps he knew his audience at the event was eager to hear about a role for government. But he did not say that government should enforce an official version of the facts — e.g., the covid vaccine is safe and effective, the 2020 election was fair and square. Instead of content-based regulation of speech, he's talking about the manner of the speech. Is it "hateful," "polarizing," or "dangerous"? He adds the phrase "in the sense of inciting violence" to gesture at some concern for the First Amendment.

Obama's speech is incredibly convoluted and mushy. That sentence that begins "By the way" — what is he proposing? Government control of the social media algorithm to suppress the voices it deems polarizing? Yeah, I think we know what that means: Suppress my political opponents, like you did before Elon Musk bought Twitter. Can we agree about that fact or is that an opinion?

***

I'm giving this post my old "alternative facts" tag. Remember "alternative facts"?

"On Netflix for the past couple seasons, there has been a TV show that displays love — a type of love that I have never seen or experienced before."

"It's a love on the spectrum. Yeah. Best show out right now...."/"So although they have... I call them different abilities... they really about their business in what they desire and what love looks like to them....  And they'll tell you straight up, hey, baby, you don't like this? That ain't going to work for me."/"I'm telling you right now, if everybody dated how they date on 'Love On the Spectrum,' dating would be so easy.... I want to be matter of fact. I want to be able to just go in... It's so amazing to watch because if they don't like each other, they'd be like, all right, cool, I'm fine with that. And they walk away. They'll go on a date and she'd be like, did you have a good time? He was like, not really, not really. I wasn't feeling it. I didn't like you like that. But we could be cool. She'd be like, I understand. Don't worry about it. And they shake hands and hug and walk off.... If I could just wake up in the morning and say how I felt...."

I enjoyed "The Manly Deeds Podcast" talking about one of my favorite TV shows, "Love On the Spectrum":

I like the idea of neurotypical people watching the show and picking up communication hints. Now, the autistic people on the show have been taught skills that are modeled on the communication of neurotypical people. But there is room for learning in both directions.

Here's the trailer for Season 3 of "Love on the Spectrum," which I highly recommend:

"State media has... suggested the new campaign intends to target even benign-sounding puns" — like "rainy girl without melons" (yǔ nǚ wú guā) for "it’s none of your business" (yǔ nǐ wú guan)."

I'm reading "China cracks down on ‘uncivilised’ online puns used to discuss sensitive topics/Campaign targets wordplay and memes that are often used by people to get around censorship controls" (The Guardian).

China’s internet regulators have launched a campaign cracking down on puns and homophones.... The “clear and bright” campaign is targeting “irregular and uncivilised” language online, particularly jokes, memes, and wordplay, the Cyberspace Administration of China and the ministry of education announced this month....

“For some time, various internet jargons and memes have appeared frequently, leaving people more and more confused,” said an editorial by the Communist party mouthpiece, the People’s Daily.... 

The People’s Daily noted the quick turnover for online memes, and urged authorities and social media platforms to not allow “obviously ambiguous” new words to spread quickly without “rectification.”

"There is speculation among social media users that President Joe Biden's recent speech was pre-recorded rather than live."

"This speculation is based on observations that the time displayed on Biden's watch during the speech did not match the actual time of the broadcast. Some users have expressed skepticism and questioned the authenticity of the speech, suggesting that it may have been edited or manipulated."

Grok summarizes the buzz on line.

Here's the image everyone is displaying. The diagram in the upper left corner shows the time of broadcast. The image on the watch, which is harder to see and upside down, shows a time around 6:07.

Great catch on the watch, but what did you expect? Why would he do it live? Yes, we have questions about his competence, but it would have been incompetent to do this live. He couldn't even really do it properly on the video that we saw, presumably pre-recorded and the best of several attempts to get it right. It was, of course, incompetent to allow the watch to show the wrong time, but someone else should have seen to that.

But why did they make the speech so long? If they needed to use pre-recording, why did they make the task of getting it right so hard? I'm thinking this was the only take, and they decided that it was good enough because it was impossible to believe it would get better. It was very poorly articulated and I (and others I talked to) found what we did hear hard to understand because it seemed to have been said by a person who did not understand the words. It was an effort to listen to that even for 11 minutes, which was all it took. Plus, it meandered through unnecessary material (while not covering the actual issue in any depth). 

It should have been half as long. Or less. A lot less. Something he could understand and say. 

Was that the last we'll ever hear from him?

ADDED: Whatever the time, we know the season. It is the winter of his possibilities:

OMG — 😂😂😂

pic.twitter.com/QnDTNXeQIw

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) July 25, 2024

AND: The words, according to the transcript, are: "We’ve come so far since my inauguration. On that day, I told you as I stood in that winter — we stood in a winter of peril and a winter of possibilities, peril and possibilities." I listened to that repeatedly before reading the transcript and I listened after reading the transcript, and every single time I hear "winter apparel."

IN THE COMMENTS: rehajm said:

As someone who takes many pictures of watches...I took one look at the photo and thought something is amiss...

I don't care about Joe's watch collection but others seem to be and they claim he wears couple Omegas- a Seamaster and a Moonwatch and also a Rolex Datejust. The only one of these this watch could be is the blue dial Rolex Datejust. I believe moden Datejust has lumed sword style hands and the inset photo looks like dauphine or dagger hands- not the same. It looks 'off'...

I went to find high-res of the address video. I'm watching but it is hard to tell- lots of refraction caused by bright lights. I sometimes believe I see the absence of hands between the five and seven markers- no hour hand between the six and seven markers and sometimes think I see the time reads about five after eight early in the video...

I'll look some more but I put a place marker on fake...

"But with Democrats, even when they talk about the good things they've done, it sounds fake. And I know that they're capable of sounding real."

"Throughout Monday afternoon, Trump raged at Graham in post after post on the social media platform after Graham said he 'respectfully' disagreed with Trump’s conclusions about abortion policy."

"Graham, in posts shared on X, argued that the court’s ruling on Roe 'does not require that conclusion legally.' 'The states’ rights only rationale today runs contrary to an American consensus that would limit late-term abortions and will age about as well as the Dred Scott decision,' Graham said. 'The science is clear — a child at fifteen weeks is well-developed and is capable of feeling pain.' Graham has been a staunch proponent of federal limits on abortions. Most recently, he has pushed for a ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy....  'The Democrats are thrilled with Lindsey, because they want this issue to simmer for as long a period of time as possible,' Trump said. In another post, Trump argued that by allowing states to make their own abortion laws, 'we have taken the Abortion Issue largely out of play.' 'We cannot let our Country suffer any further damage by losing Elections on an issue that should always have been decided by the States, and now will be,' Trump said...."

From "Trump rages against [Lindsey] Graham on abortion in rare break between allies/The posts from the former president came after the senator said he ‘respectfully’ disagreed with Trump’s stance on abortion Monday" (WaPo).

Graham's support for a federal statute limiting abortion undercuts an argument that abortion opponents will want to make if Congress ever creates a right to abortion in the form of a federal statute. But if protecting the life of the unborn is your highest priority, that's where you go as a matter of principle. The idea of leaving it to the states seems like a pragmatic compromise.

"President Biden will announce a new effort on Monday to reduce or eliminate student loan debt for millions of borrowers, an election-year attempt to..."

So begins the first sentence of the NYT article by Michael D. Shear, "Biden Will Try Again to Wipe Out Student Loan Debt for Millions of Borrowers/The Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s first attempt at large-scale student debt relief last summer."

The sentence piddles out tautologically:

... revive his goal of providing large-scale relief for Americans struggling to pay off their college loans, a person familiar with the plan said Friday.

Biden is reducing or eliminating debt in order to reduce or eliminate debt. Noted, and thanks for mentioning that this is happening in an election year.

But the word "attempt" doesn't fit. If what he's attempting to do is to reduce or eliminate debt, then how is the reduction or elimination of debt just an attempt to reduce or eliminate debt? A reduction or elimination of debt is a reduction or elimination of debt. We have the modifier "election-year": It's an "election-year attempt." That's such an awkward way to avoid having to say that what's being attempted — with our money — is to win the election.