"Lefty upstart Zohran Mamdani has leapfrogged over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the city’s ranked choice Democratic primary for mayor..."

"... according to a stunning new poll released Monday. In its hypothetical initial round of voting, Cuomo’s lead shrinks to 3 percentage points, with 35% of likely Democratic voters supporting him compared to 32% for Mamdani and 13% for city Comptroller Brad Lander, the Emerson College Polling/Pix 11/The Hill survey found.... [S]ince no one garners the more than 50% of the vote needed to win outright, the ranked choice system kicks in. That means that even if a voter’s first choice is eliminated in successive rounds of calculations, their other picks could still be in the mix and emerge as the eventual overall winner. Mamdani finally surpasses Cuomo in the eighth round [!!!!!] of the simulated ranked choice voting — 51.8% to 48.2% — in the latest poll conducted June 18-20...."

I'm reading "Shocking poll shows Mamdani overtaking Cuomo in NYC’s ranked choice primary" (NY Post).

"Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and tired divisions of the past..."

"... and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together — not bombing each other out of existence. (Watch) This great transformation has not come from Western interventionists… giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neo-cons,’ or ‘liberal non-profits,’ like those who spent trillions failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves … developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies. (Watch) In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. (Watch)..."

From President Trump's speech in Riyadh.

Here's how the NYT covered the tremendously important speech: "Trump’s Pledge to the Middle East: No More ‘Lectures on How to Live’/In Saudi Arabia, the president denounced Western intervention and nation-building, garnering both praise and eye rolls." (Yes, the speech garnered.) Excerpt:

"Garner" of the Day.

I don't really find a "garner" for every day. I just think it's funny to say "of the day" when the word "garner" pops up in a way that amuses me, like this one, last year. The word "garner" has delighted me ever since Meade pointed out that Jeb Bush — remember him? — said it 3 times in a single episode of "Face the Nation."

Here's today's "garner," in a question from the NYT "Ethicist" column:

A few years ago, a close cisgender male friend in a heterosexual marriage began identifying as queer. All of his romantic experiences have been with women. Through therapy, however, he concluded that gender wouldn’t have mattered in choosing a partner when he was single. He’s happily married and is monogamous with his wife. Still, he’s altered his presentation — fashion, hair, piercings, slang — to align with queer culture, and he openly identifies as part of the queer community and attends queer events. It feels as if my friend is attempting to garner the benefits and cultural cachet of being queer while also living a heteronormative life. Is this permissible authentic expression, or is it cultural appropriation?

What benefits and cachet have you garnered recently?

Not only do I get to use my "garner (the word!)" tag — I have tags for "cultural appropriation" and "heteronormativity." That feels like some kind of tag jackpot. Unfortunately, I don't have a tag for "queer." And I'm not making one. Not today.

Trump posts a mindbending video — "Trump Gaza."

I know A.I. can easily make video like this, it's just amazing that the President of the United States is passing it along:

ADDED: NPR is making a big play for the Althouse link with this headline: "Trump's social media video garners pushback from Arabs and Muslims in U.S. and Gaza."

Garner is a silly word, but "garners pushback" is a particularly bad combination. The idea of "garner" should be more about collecting and storing something that you want. The original meaning is a place to store grain. So it ought to be something that you want to amass for your benefit. Politicians are always "garnering" votes and endorsements. It shouldn't be something you don't want, like "pushback."

"Baltimore’s top prosecutor is no longer seeking to vacate the murder conviction of Adnan Syed, the man whose case garnered national attention in the 'Serial' podcast..."

"...over a decade ago. In a new filing Tuesday evening, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates withdrew a motion to vacate Syed’s conviction filed in 2022 by previous state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby, saying the original motion contains 'false and misleading statements.'... Syed was convicted in 2000 for the 1999 murder of his then-high school classmate and ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee... Last August, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld a lower appellate court’s decision to reinstate Syed’s conviction, ruling that the rights of Lee’s family were violated because her official representative, her brother Young Lee, was not properly notified of the 2022 hearing to vacate the conviction...."

From "Baltimore prosecutors give up fight to vacate Adnan Syed’s murder conviction ahead of hearing to reduce his prison sentence" (CNN).

"What was the Lie of the Year?"

Meade asked me just now, referring to the annual designation that appears in PolitiFact.

I thought for a moment, then said: "Joe Biden is sharp as a tack."

Meade said he thought PolitiFact would pick "They're eating the pets."

Hearing that, I agreed. Because PolitiFact would want to go against Trump, not Biden. And because "They're eating the pets" was such an extravagant and wild statement. It was interesting to talk about the instant Trump said it. But "Joe Biden is sharp as a tack" was much more of a lie. Because it was believed. For a long time. And it was completely momentous. It prevented a normal primary process for the Democrats and left them, in the end, with a candidate who couldn't win. 

I looked it up. PolitiFact made its Lie of the Year announcement 3 days ago. We hadn't noticed. Here: "'They’re eating the pets'/Trump, Vance earn PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year for claims about Haitians."

PolitiFact, which for 16 years has issued a year-end lie of the year report, keenly understands that when emotions collide with facts, emotions often prevail. To wit: Trump increased his voter support in Clark County, Ohio, which includes Springfield, this year above what he garnered in his 2016 and 2020 campaigns....

Speaking of garnering... the brilliant song made from Trump's "pet" bit has garnered over 14 million views:

ADDED:

 

Garnering Amish votes.

I'm reading "The famously secluded Amish are the target of a Republican campaign to drum up Pennsylvania votes for Trump" (WaPo):

Amish PAC aims to garner more votes for President Trump in 2020 in a state both the president and the Democrats are desperate to win. Amish people tend to align strongly on policy with Republicans.... But making voters out of the Amish, who forgo television and the Internet and believe fiercely in the separation of their religious community from government intrusion, may be a steep goal....

A quote from Ben Walters, who co-founded Amish PAC: “The Amish care about religious liberty, business regulation, abortion and judges. Those are four things that the Amish overwhelmingly support President Trump over whoever the Democratic candidate is. We talk a lot more about issues than we do about candidates."

A quote from an Amish woman: "I think Trump — who’s Trump? He’s the president, right? — he’s doing pretty good. Just from what I hear people say, he’s trying to improve things."

"The case has garnered national attention both for the salaciousness of a high-profile university official making pornographic movies and publicly talking about it..."

"... and the questions it raises about free speech rights. [Joe] Gow argued that his videos and two e-books he and his wife, Carmen, have published about their experiences in adult films are protected by the First Amendment. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect "The Star Spangled Banner,"' Gow’s attorney, Mark Leitner, told the committee. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect easy and comforting speech. It’s exactly the opposite. We need the First Amendment precisely when the danger of stifling, controversial, unpopular speech is at its highest. And that’s what we have here.'... The school is pushing to fire Gow for unethical conduct, insubordination for refusing to cooperate with an investigation and violating computer policies.... Gow has maintained that he and his wife produced the pornographic materials on their own time. He insists the videos and the books never mentioned UW-La Crosse or his role at the university...."

From "Porn-making former University of Wisconsin campus leader argues for keeping his teaching job" (AP)." Gow, formerly chancellor of UW-La Crosse, made his argument to the personnel committee of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.

I don't know if these free-speech arguments garnered the attention of the regents. We're told they "asked no questions."

"Garner" of the Day

"Elon Musk shared a video of an AI-generated fashion show featuring world leaders such as PM Modi, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Vladimir Putin, showcasing them in futuristic outfits. The video, which has garnered significant attention on social media, highlights the capabilities of AI in creating visually striking content. The event has sparked a wide range of reactions, with some users expressing excitement and approval, while others are skeptical or critical. The AI fashion show has also raised discussions about the potential impact of AI on the fashion industry, including its role in enhancing creativity and sustainability." 

A summary at X about the virality and discussion of this video:

AI fashion show for world leaders 😂😂😂 #OccupyJKIA Muhoho Sodium Cyanide Joe Biden #Leak Michelle Obama New World Order pic.twitter.com/XRjkS4OfWG

— Derrick Shabatai (@DerrickShabz) July 22, 2024

"The 41-year-old inmate had garnered attention in previous years, including when he sought to donate a kidney in 2022 to atone for his crime — a petition Texas denied...."

"During his trial, psychiatrist Edward Gripon testified that recidivism rates among people who commit sex crimes are as high as 80 percent — a statistic that was widely used at the time to justify punishment, but that has since been debunked. Gripon told the court that Gonzales would be a future danger 'wherever he goes' because he suffered from an incurable and violence-inducing mental disorder. Gripon relied on written statements from Gonzales’s cellmate saying that Gonzales had spoken about the crime and said 'he would do it again.' The cellmate in 2019 recanted his testimony and said an officer had threatened him with a harsher sentence if he didn’t help vilify Gonzales...."

From "Tex. inmate executed after expert recanted testimony on ‘future dangerousness’/Ramiro Gonzales was executed by lethal injection Wednesday after Texas’s Board of Parole and Pardons unanimously voted Monday to deny his clemency petition" (WaPo).

"This sense of court as theater, and the attention Ms. Brourman’s approach has garnered her, has not always sat well with her colleagues."

"They were dubious of her at first.... Was it possible to be women in their line of work, one that has seen so many men on trial for doing many bad things to women, and not bring themselves into it even slightly? 'I think we are so focused on trying to get these drawings down and done,' Ms. Williams began, 'that our personal female view is like …' She trailed off.... The world is often male by default; politics and the law even more so. There is something unique, even fun, in knowing that this little corner of the universe.... has been so thoroughly taken over by the female gaze that the women themselves don’t even notice."

Writes Jessica Bennett, in "'Accordion Hands' and 'Caterpillar Eyebrows': Trump Meets the Female Gaze" (NYT) — an article about courtroom artists who are female.

I'm not sure what enlightenment this article has garnered me. It seems that the writer went looking for feminist material but couldn't pry it out of these artists who — obviously — have a professional interest in maintaining a reputation for neutrality. They draw what they see. That's what they must say. They're not going to help the NYT have "fun" with the idea that they are women getting back at "many men on trial for doing many bad things to women."

"Florida is at the forefront of a dizzying and contentious array of statewide bans..."

"... outlawing lab grown meat, certain books from school libraries and classrooms, and most abortions after six weeks. But the balloon ban is rare for garnering widespread bipartisan support.... The new legislation makes it clear that balloons can pose an environmental hazard, supporters say. It equates intentionally releasing a balloon filled with a gas lighter than air with littering...."

"Balloons Harm Wildlife. Florida Is Set to Ban Their Release/In an effort to curb microplastics and marine pollution, lawmakers in the Sunshine State voted overwhelmingly to make it illegal to intentionally let a balloon fly away" (NYT).

Of course, releasing a balloon is littering! How did people ever convince themselves that it wasn't? Well, they just didn't think about it, did they?

Side note: Did you spot the free-range "garnering" released into the wild?

"Donald Trump is presenting himself as the Man on the Cross, tortured for our sins."

"'I consider it a great badge of courage,' he tells crowds. 'I am being indicted for you.'... In January, he put up a video on Truth Social about how he is a messenger from God, 'a shepherd to mankind.'... 'All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many,' Trump barked. 'It’s my favorite book.' Maybe the Bible has replaced that Hitler book Trump’s ex-wife said he kept by his bed. But it’s all a scam. Running for president is about enriching himself....  If there is one thing Trump knows how to do, it’s exploit chaos he creates.... Declining faith in religion and rising faith in conspiracies create fertile ground for a faker like Trump...."

Maureen Dowd meowed, in "Donald Trump, Blasphemous Bible Thumper" (NYT).

If they hadn't leaned so hard into persecuting him, he wouldn't have the foundation to make the comparison to Jesus Christ.

And — to repurpose Dowd's phrase — if there is one thing Trump knows how to do, it’s to exploit the chaos his haters create for him. 

ADDED: Whatever you think of Donald Trump, should you use the term "Bible thumper"? Isn't it a looking down on people who follow religions worthy of respect? The OED designates the term "derogatory," and here's a discussion in the subreddit r/Christianity. Someone writes:

It's a trap, and they fall into it.

That's from Memeorandum's display of current headlines.

I say it's a trap — and they fell into it — because although Trump is raising some money — campaign merchandise — he's getting free PR from his antagonists. Not only are they raising awareness of this buyable item, they are displaying their own disgust — if not horror — at the sacred object.

Read more about Trump's Bible, here, at Axios. Oh! I see Trump isn't raising money: "None of the money garnered from the Bible will go toward Trump's presidential campaign, the website states."

"Acyn Torabi... posted a video clip of the 'bloodbath' quote, shorn of most of the surrounding verbiage, garnering 22 million views..."

"... on X.com. ... Joe Biden’s campaign posted a similar clip soon after Torabi did, implying Trump was fomenting violence. By Sunday morning, Republicans on the news-making talk shows were asked about Trump’s comment. They responded by arguing Trump was just talking about the economy and Democrats were taking the word 'bloodbath' out of context. Ever since we have been subjected to a semantic debate over 'what did Trump really mean.' Such chin-stroking works to Trump’s advantage, dulling the potential for mass outrage when he makes outrageous statements. How can we avoid this semantic trap?... [We need to connect] Trump’s rhetoric to his presidency without burdening Trump’s critics to prove a remark was intended to provoke violence. It doesn’t matter what he meant by any particular riff.... If the Biden team deploys this narrative... then future instances of Trump’s explosive asides tossed in convoluted word salads can be easily prosecuted without a linguistics seminar on what he meant."

Writes Bill Scher, in "No More 'Bloodbaths' or How to Avoid Stupid Debates Over Trump’s Semantics/Forget parsing his words. Democrats should connect Trump’s past rhetoric to the street violence and Capitol insurrection of his last year in office" (Washington Monthly).

Yes, be more substantive. Stop relying on quirks of language to get attention. And speaking of quirks of language, stop saying "garner." 

"Did Biden's VA Ban Iconic 'V-J Day in Times Square' Photo?/Screen grabs show a genuine Veterans Affairs memorandum, but officials say it was sent in error."

An intriguing headline at Snopes.

The since-rescinded memo, sent from the VA Office of the Assistant Under Secretary of Health for Operations, stated that photo should be removed on the grounds that it depicted a non-consensual kiss: 

"Garner" of the day.

I was going to tag this onto the first post of the day — it's the same topic — but I'm savoring the presentation, replete with "garner":

Tens of thousands of Michiganders on Tuesday cast their ballots for “uncommitted,” putting them on track to garner more than 10 percent of the vote statewide. That figure seemed likely to exceed past levels of “uncommitted” votes in Michigan Democratic primaries, though fall short of sparking a political earthquake.

Democrats were divided over how to treat the outcome, noting that Biden continued to dominate the primary in ways similar to, or even exceeding, past incumbents but also wary that significant pockets of discontent in the party could prove fatal in the general election....

From "Biden won the Michigan primary decisively — but not by enough to calm Democratic angst/The president continues to put up major wins. But the protest campaign in Michigan foreshadows potential problems for him come November" (Politico).

Uncommitted didn't just get 10% of the vote. It garnered it. Take that, Joe Biden. The garnerers are hot on your trail. And they are significant. You've got to be wary. Those significant pockets of discontent could prove fatal! You've always got to be on the lookout for fatal pockets.

Speaking of fatal pockets, did you know that a baby sleeping on its stomach with its face against a pillow "may build up fatal pockets of Carbon Dioxide they can't escape"? And beware of the karst landscape.

Today's garnering.

I was reading "Vera Wang, 74, flaunts age-defying appearance in hooded gown at the BAFTA Gala 2024" —in the NY Post (and marveling at the photographs) — when I encountered that word:

"The fashion designer, whose impressive appearance at 74 years old continues to garner attention, arrived at London’s swanky Peninsula Hotel in a stunning white gown."

Others may get attention, but Vera Wang garners attention. The comments over there are funny. No one seems to agree that she has defied age.

By the way, did the Post get the flaunt/flout distinction right? Yes. She may be flouting age, but she's flaunting age defiance.

"While the allegations raised in the various motions are salacious and garnered the media attention they were designed to obtain, none provide this Court with any basis upon which to order the relief they seek."

Said Fani Willis in a new court filing, quoted in "Prosecutor in Trump Georgia Case Admits Relationship With Colleague/But the prosecutor, Fani T. Willis, said there wasn’t a relationship with Nathan Wade before she hired him and argued that it should not disqualify her" (NYT).

"The detour took Easler and her family onto a gravel road that eventually disappeared into a bumpy dirt trail."

"They quickly realized something was wrong as they looked at the line of cars in front of them. 'They’re all going directly into the desert,' Easler recalled. The Google Maps route created a day-long ordeal.... SFGate reported on the incident after Easler posted a TikTok video that garnered more than a million views.... Even as the route got bumpier as it proceeded off-road... they trusted that the large number of cars accompanying them meant they were still on the right track, Easler said. 'Nobody was turning around. So we figured that it led somewhere,' Easler said...."

From "Google apologizes after map led drivers down dirt path into the desert" (WaPo).

So did they "quickly realize[] something was wrong" or did they keep "trust[ing] that the large number of cars... meant they were still on the right track"? The article doesn't bother to make sense, even as it shows a vivid example of humans proceeding blindly into the unknown.

Here's the TikTok that garnered: