"Trump Badly Screws Susan Collins as Maine ICE Death Takes Darker Turn."

There's a crass headline for you. From The New Republic. Excerpt:

The incident neatly captures how Trump, through his handling of this horrific ICE shooting, is inadvertently screwing over Collins and complicating her path to reelection...  Can Democrats turn the ICE shooting into a serious liability for Collins and shift the broader moral debate over immigration their way? It should be very doable....

"The teams totaled 34 hits, and 14 pitchers combined to throw 444 pitches. It was the fourth game in major league history with at least 29 runs and 11 homers."

I'm reading "Brewers outlast A's 15-14 in 12 innings as teams combine for 11 homers and 34 hits in Las Vegas/Andrew Vaughn had four hits and four RBIs, including a two-run double that tied the score in the ninth inning, and the Milwaukee Brewers outlasted the Athletics 15-14 in 12 innings at Las Vegas Ballpark in a wild game that featured 11 homers" (WaPo).

No, I wasn't watching. That game started at my bedtime — 9 p.m.

I just noticed that there's a team now that's just named the Athletics — no city/state in the name. Just the mascot... and it's the most generic mascot. The Athletics. And they played in Las Vegas last night — "at the site of their Triple-A affiliate, the Las Vegas Aviators." They seem homeless. They're not in Oakland anymore, and their normal home these days is West Sacramento, but not enough of a home to become part of its name. Playing a few games in Las Vegas this week has something to do with Las Vegas being its future home. A new stadium will open in 2028.

But maybe you watched basketball last night. I'd rather watch a random baseball game than an important basketball game, but I did pause the movie I was watching and go downstairs to hear the National Anthem and catch a glimpse of Trump. The NYT says "Mr. Trump smiled and saluted in the face of deafening boos when he briefly appeared on the arena’s video board...." I went back to my movie — "A Complete Unknown," now, finally, on HBO — but I did look up the result this morning. I see Trump ruined everything:

Ooh, that Trump. The Knicks lost. Meanwhile, Bob Dylan won. That's what Joan Baez says to him at the end of the biopic: "You won." He's all "What did I win?" and then he rides off into the sunset on his motorcycle. 

Trump and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week.

The top left corner of The NYT right now:

It's like a children's taunt: You act like you're so big but you're not.

"They know that American society is going to turn against them in big ways because they are the greatest and most illegitimate pirates who ever lived."

"Tech is the single most powerful force that was ever arrayed against the humanities. There is a huge difference between knowledge and information, and these asinine people have taught our population that all of knowledge can be reduced to the status of information. Press a button, you got your answer. So the whole humanistic mentality of mystery, obscurity, patience, beauty — it’s the opposite of what this technology has inculcated."

Said Leon Wieseltier, Maureen Dowd, in "What A.I. Kant Do" (NYT). Wieseltier is identified only as "editor of the journal Liberties," but I needed more context, so:

Yes, tell me about the the whole humanistic mentality of mystery, obscurity, patience, beauty under siege by the greatest and most illegitimate pirates who ever lived.

I wondered why Dowd — or whoever wrote the headline — went with the stale pun "Kant" when they could have used "Oh, the humanities!" But though I came up with that on my own and was going to use it as a kicker at the end of this post, a quick google showed it's been used and used and used.

It was even famously used, 15 years ago, as a punchline on "The Big Bang Theory":

"Well, then, prepare to be terrified. If your friends are unconvincing, this year's donations might go to say the geology department... or worse it could go to the liberal arts. Millions of dollars being showered on poets literary theorists and students of gender studies"/"Oh, the humanities!"

"The US and China 'should be partners and not rivals,' President Xi has said, as he and President Trump exchanged warm words during bilateral talks in Beijing."

"Trump praised his host as a 'great leader' and 'friend,' predicting that their countries would have 'a fantastic future together.' However, Xi warned the two nations could come into conflict if the Taiwan question is 'mishandled.' He told his US counterpart that 'the Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations,' according to remarks published by Chinese state media shortly after talks began.
'If mishandled, the two nations could collide or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a highly perilous situation,' Xi added."

The London Times reports.

I'm quoting the UK newspaper, but I did note the Washington Post and New York Times headlines for this story. Both use the same verb: 

The Washington Post: "Xi warns Trump that mishandling Taiwan could spark 'conflicts.'"

The New York Times: "Xi Warns Trump on Taiwan at Beijing Summit."

Warns. 

That puts Xi in the dominant position. Trump is on the receiving end.

By contrast, the London Times headline is "Xi tells Trump: China and US should be partners, not rivals."

Tells. That makes a difference. I chose the UK newspaper because I'm put off by our own newspapers' endless antagonism toward Trump and seeming desire to cause anxiety to Americans.

You have to be very deeply into Democratic Party politics to write a blank-days-that-shook-the-blank headline about this.

"10 Days That Shook the House Map and Democratic Confidence."

That's the top headline at the NYT this morning. 

You know the story: "Just two weeks ago, Democrats felt increasingly emboldened about taking control of the House in November after seeming to fight the redistricting wars to a draw. But two court rulings — one by the Supreme Court and another by Virginia’s top court — and an aggressive new push by red states to carve up congressional maps have delivered the Republican Party its biggest burst of momentum in many months. Put bluntly, Republicans have roughly 10 more House seats that favor them than they did just 10 days ago, and Democrats are suddenly grappling with a new landscape."

This feels like one of those NYT articles that's mainly performing the service of tending to the readers' emotions. Let's all do panic together this morning. When I encounter that sort of thing, my natural instinct is to go somewhere else. If we're doing group emotion, I'm looking for the door.

So: I'm interested in the history of titles in the blank-days-that-shook-the-blank form. The original is "10 Days That Shook the World," the 1919 first-hand account of the Russian Revolution by John Reed. His editor described Reed's frenzy:

Venomous bites.

Kyle Rittenhouse, who gained fame for opening fire at a 2020 civil rights rally in Wisconsin, was hospitalized after he was bitten by a venomous spider, the noted firearms enthusiast says. https://t.co/sPEoH0rhjy

— NBC News (@NBCNews) May 7, 2026

The new chore is the pre-chore chore of making chores seem fun.

I'm reading the WaPo article titled "The secret to making chores so fun that you look forward to them/Strategies such as a points system, timed challenges and even 'the poop rule' can lend some excitement to mundane tasks such as decluttering or mopping the floor" (gift link).

 

And the secret to making headlines so fun you have to clip is to include bait like "the poop rule." But I will go in there to save you from the temptation and give you more time for brainwashing yourself into the enjoyment of chores that, if done, will actually benefit you. 

"The poop rule" is: "When decluttering, ask yourself, 'If this item was covered in poop, would I still keep it?'"

That's a little harsh. I prefer the rule: If your friend were decluttering and wanted to deaccession this item, would you add it to your collection of stuff?

Anyway... I made that a gift link so the pay wall wouldn't factor into your experience of temptation to click. Otherwise it's sour grapes: I couldn't get past the paywall anyway. No, you can get it, but can you resist? There might be a useful tip or 2. 

"Trump to deport hundreds of bison from Montana."

That's a headline at the London Times.

Subheadline: "The American Prairie Foundation has had its license to graze conservation herds of bison on federal pastures revoked by the Department of the Interior."

From the text: "The Department of the Interior, which has a bison as its logo, has revoked the licence of a rewilding charity trying to restore the natural splendour of the 'American Serengeti,' the eco-diverse range of grasslands home to wolves, pronghorns, grizzly bears and mountain lions.... Doug Burgum, the secretary of the interior, who owns a ranch in neighbouring North Dakota, has favoured the arguments of cattle farmers eager to graze their cow herds on cheap federal lands instead...."

"If you find out that an artist whose work you consume is a terrible person, and you still choose to consume it, are you a terrible person?"

Asks Will Leitch, in "The terrible Michael Jackson movie exposes a central cultural question. The film is indefensible. The impulse to see it is deeply human" (WaPo).

I don't know who wrote the headline, but I don't see Leitch attributing deep humanity to the millions of people who are seeing and loving "Michael" — which he and all the critics know "is a bad movie."

Those people who love "Michael" are, in Leitch's words, those who "generally don’t see mass culture as a moral issue, or a political one, or really as having much practical, tangible effect on their lives at all. They go to the movies, listen to music, watch television or read books, not to make some sort of statement about the world but to take a break from it. For most people, art and entertainment are just something that gets you out of the house for a while — and might even make you dance."

In short, they are the very opposite of deep. 

I would have liked to hear a sophisticated analysis of why it is deeply human to want to see Michael again, in his glory, without the ugliness of the accusations. It is deeply human to long for a return to feelings of joy and love that enveloped you when you were young. You're not a nitwit to want that.

On the above-the-fold front page of The New York Times, one story stands out.

Do you see it? When you see it, you will know. It may take a little while, and you will not need to say "Is it 'Republicans Brace for Brutal Midterms'? Or whatever. You will, I think, laugh. Because of course....

The Iran war drops from the top screen of the NYT home page.

It looks like this now:

Not only has the assassination attempt taken over as the top story, priority is given to a revival of immigration enforcement stories, a military strike on a "narco-terrorist" boat, the chair of the federal reserve, and — hard news is such a drag — music, theater, and women's handbags. 

If we scroll down to the bottom half of the home page, we do get to an Iran story, but the tone of the headline is dramatically different: "Iran and U.S. Sink Into Awkward Limbo of 'No War, No Peace.'"

It's not a dire emergency anymore. The war is over. We won. Iran just won't admit it, and we're not going to give them anything for holding out on admitting what is true. No, it doesn't say that. The article, analysis by Erika Solomon, goes with a "both sides" trope:

"Androgenic Reacts After Reports Of Clavicular Suspected Overdose."

A Newsweek headline. Can you even read it?

I know Clavicular is a person, and I've got to presume Androgenic is also a person. By their names alone, I would have guessed they were corporations or health-care products of some kind. But in the context — reacting, overdosing — I can see that they are human beings. Sad.

Clavicular is only 20, and he's gotten far too much attention for a young person. Yes, he's been asking for it, but don't give young people everything they ask for.

Sample paragraph from his Wikipedia page: "On December 27, 2025... [Clavicular] described Vice President JD Vance as 'subhuman' for his "recessed side profile' and for being 'obese,' asking, 'How are you fat and expected to lead a country?' He agreed with [a] criticism of California governor Gavin Newsom as both a 'degenerate' and a 'liar' but said that, in a potential 2028 United States presidential election in which Newsom ran against Vance, he would vote for 'Chad' Newsom for 'mogging,' or being more attractive than, Vance."

Headline that I wish wasn't literal: "Needy Caterpillars Vibrate to Complex Rhythms to Communicate With Ants."

It's just a Smithsonian article about some damned thing actually caterpillars do to con ants:

They found that the caterpillars with the most significant myrmecophily, or relationship with ants, communicated signals with exceedingly regular timing and particularly intricate rhythms very similar to those that ants employ. On the other hand, the caterpillars with weak or zero myrmecophily had simpler and less regular rhythms....

Great. Good for the caterpillars and I hope the ants are digging the good vibrations.

I want the article — about human beings — that would fit that headline if only it were metaphorical. Clearly, we the People are the ants, and the needy caterpillars are politicians. 

The most covered-up look possible is judged by the NYT to be "Most Peek-A-Boo."

Before I encountered this NYT article — "12 Unforgettable Looks at the BAFTAs Swishy suits, mermaid skirts, skunk feet and more" (gift link) — I had looked at BAFTA fashion pictures and selected this Teyana Taylor dress as my favorite. I loved how extremely covered up it was:

Why focus on the "peek-a-boo"? Yes, there's a slit, but nothing is revealed because there is boot leather hiding the entire leg.

What's exciting about this outfit is the outlandishly extensive coverage.

Gavin Newsom and the 7 Women.

From the London Times.

Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, a fellow with the measurements of a Disney prince who once behaved, by his own admission, “as a single guy who happened to be mayor” of San Francisco rather than the other way around.

"President Peña of Paraguay is here.... Young, handsome guy. It’s always nice to be young and handsome."

"Doesn’t mean we have to like you. I don’t like young, handsome men. Women, I like. Men, I don’t have any interest."

Said Trump — at the Board of Peace event yesterday — quoted by The Daily Mail in "CNN host caught in hot-mic anti-Trump slip up as her colleagues rush to cover for her."

The inane headline refers to the way Sara Sidnar, on hearing that quote, said — and this is the whole quote from her — "What?"

Is that even anti-Trump?! Doesn't everyone say or at least think something along the lines of "What?" when they hear that?

I think we can hope for a lip synch from Bransen Gates. It's excellent material for him:

Person shot.

 

Both The Washington Post and The New York Times say that a "person" has been shot. Is there some question whether this was a woman or a man? If not, it's oddly dehumanizing.

From WaPo: "Federal agents shot another person in Minnesota on Saturday morning, Gov. Tim Walz said in a social media post. Police did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the incident, and Walz provided few details. It was not immediately clear which federal agency was involved, and the condition of the apparent victim was unknown."

Checking Walz's X post, I see it doesn't even say "person," just "another horrific shooting" (along with the demand, "The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now").

What was so bad about 1976?

That's the teaser on the front page of the NYT for an article with a different headline, "The Conservative Conspiracy Against Women’s Progress Is Real" (by Jessica Grose).

The article says nothing about the 1970s. I do see a reference to the 1960s: "The report’s authors know they can’t tell all women to be stay-at-home mothers (returning the country to 1960s employment levels for women) because that would contradict their other goal, to dismantle the welfare state and put even more work conditions on parents receiving government aid." The 60s were 60 years ago, and the article does call the report "a curious set of guidelines for the future, since it seems mired in culture war battles from the 20th century, unable to face the past 60 years of change."

Usually the 1950s are selected as the era of the traditional wife and the 1960s represent the exciting period of changing gender roles. The 70s were the heyday of feminism. These decades feel quite distinct from each other to me, a person born in 1951. Jessica Grose was born... when? Maybe to millennials, the 50s, 60s, and 70s seem like one big chunk of boomer oldness. 

"One day, he is a man who loves his wife and has just bought a terrifically expensive mattress for their bed."

"The next he tells her, his eyes narrowing into a shape she had never seen before: 'I thought I was happy but I’m not. I thought I wanted our life but I don’t.' He tells her she can have everything, including custody of the children. 'I don’t want it,' he says. 'I don’t want any of it.'"

From "Her Life Was an Old-Money Dream. It Collapsed in a Moment. Born into exceptional privilege, Belle Burden had it all: love, money, family. Then her marriage fell apart" (NYT).

Now, I clicked on that link because the headline bugged me. I keep seeing these sudden-collapse headlines. Articles are always offering to pinpoint the moment when things changed. There's one on the front page of The London Times right now: "The moment Landman’s teenage blonde changed American TV." It's annoying me. They think we're manipulable by our belief in the magic moment.

But I'm blogging because of the mattress, the "terrifically expensive mattress." I think I've blogged about that mattress: "[T]he most preposterously priced mattress, a king-size Grande Vivius, costs $539,000...." I've made a new tag, "mattress," and added it retrospectively, which is a much bigger task than you might think. There are so many posts about someone known as "mattress girl" and I've repeatedly blogged about the line "it balances on your head just like a mattress balances on a bottle of wine."

But really, if you were the stay-at-home wife to a rich man, would the purchase of a terrifically expensive mattress make you think he is more likely to stay or less likely to stay? He might want to cushion your fall, to pacify and lull you. What is the meaning of a mattress?

AND: Maybe the mattress was the tipping point. That mattress was exactly what made him see that the life they'd formed together was her vision of the good, and he couldn't relate to it at all. She wanted grand material things and he didn't want any of it. You don't need me, you have the mattress.