Things I'm not talking about.

1. Susan Rice.

2. Mamdani's snow shovelers and the 2-ID requirement. 

3. Trump's re-tariffing gimmick.

4. Our war with Iran.

5. Photograph of Prince Andrew.

I'm not judging these stories to be inconsequential. I just have nothing to add, nothing that fits my approach to blogging anyway. I like them as items to list. The list signifies that I feel some pressure. They're nagging at me. But I'm resisting. Feel free to talk about them in the comments. They're actually all good topics. I'm just not feeling the value of my own yammering on them. Maybe you think I've already said too much, what with that one word.

"Gimmick" is "Originally U.S. slang," according to the OED, which defines it like this: "A gadget; spec. a contrivance for dishonestly regulating a gambling game, or an article used in a conjuring trick; now usually a tricky or ingenious device, gadget, idea, etc., esp. one adopted for the purpose of attracting attention or publicity."

The oldest appearance of the word is an entry in the 1926 "Wise-crack Dictionary": "Gimmick, device used for making a fair game crooked." 

The news of authenticity.

1. "Museum of Authenticity Annex Closes, Exhibits Feature is Expanded in Original Location" (Ark Valley Voice): "The Museum of Authenticity has offered unique, curated exhibits of art and utilitarian artifacts in Salida for years. While the larger annex off of F Street has closed, the museum itself has not gone anywhere...." 

2. "Time To Get Serious About Workplace Authenticity" (Forbes): "Think of your favorite leaders, whether political icons, sports captains, or CEOs. How would you objectively measure their authenticity? There is no baseline. No benchmark. If you find Trump authentic you probably adhere with his values; same goes for Obama. By the same token, not many Trump fans would find Obama authentic, and vice-versa."

3. "The authenticity double standard is negatively impacting female leaders/We tell brands that humanity drives commercial success, so why do we still advise women leaders to suppress theirs?" (MarketingWeek):

"It is especially amusing to hear progressives, the principal creators of the watery Caesarism of today’s presidency, sorrowfully describing Trump’s ballroom..."

"... as discordant with the White House’s proper modesty. They should worry less about the president’s residential immodesty and more about his anti-constitutional immodesty.

Writes George Will, in "The choreographed fakery of American politics: East Wing edition/Trump’s residential immodesty is nothing compared with his anti-constitutional immodesty" (WaPo).

I wondered if anyone had written "watery Caesarism" before. It sounds like a bad salad. A real salad, not a word salad. Don't put the dressing on until you're about to eat it. Anyway, "watery Caesarism" did turn up on a few old web pages, but — are you surprised? — they're all written by George Will!

1992: "Trouble is, most presidents are mediocre.

"The daughter of Ali Shamkhani, one of the Islamic Republic’s top enforcers, had a lavish wedding in a strapless dress."

"Meanwhile, women in Iran are beaten for showing their hair and young people can’t afford to marry."

Wrote Masih Alinejad, an exiled Iranian dissident, quoted in "Why a strapless wedding dress threatens Iran hardliner Ali Shamkhani/The daughter of Ayatollah Khamenei’s henchman wore a low-cut gown, prompting accusations of double standards among the elite in the Islamic regime" (London Times).

And yet: "The leaked video appears... to have been taken from a female-only event at the wedding, at which it is not uncommon for the father and groom to make a brief appearance. The regime has lashed out against the critics, and one newspaper affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard insisted that Shamkhani had behaved in a 'dignified and proper manner.'..."

As for the display of wealth, we're told the wedding cost $20,000.

Katherine Maher — NPR CEO — was caught in a trap of her own design.

It really is amazing watching people like Katherine Maher hear things she’s said and posted, and be so stunned at how absurd and ridiculous they sound that they deny saying what they’ve already said
pic.twitter.com/nP2IKv3VtN

— Ian Miller (@ianmSC) March 26, 2025

I'm glad to see NPR is giving us:

I love those 2 pictures together. So expressive! Both women seem to be earnestly accessing some ideal that is positioned upward and to her left. Here's the link if you need NPR to hand you "4 takeaways."

Here's Maher's bio at NPR. A very interesting fact: "Maher is the Chair of the Board of Signal Foundation, responsible for the secure, private Signal Messenger app...."

Gavinx.

THIS IS BRUTAL! Gavin Newsom claimed on his podcast that no one in his office ever used the word "Latinx" to describe Latinos, so CNN aired a compilation of Newsom himself saying it REPEATEDLY.

It's amazing to see leftists tearing themselves apart.

Newsom: "By the way, not one… pic.twitter.com/jM1YxiWxeC

— George (@BehizyTweets) March 21, 2025

Who's in the worst position to write a book about the coverup of Biden's cognitive decline?

Tapper then: It's a conspiracy theory to say Biden has cognitive decline. It's a stutter.

Tapper now: A book on the cover up pic.twitter.com/UjnQXgkzFF

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 26, 2025

Here's Jake Tapper incensed over Joe Biden's "stutter" and outraged over claims of Biden's cognitive decline.

Now he's cashing in on a book about Biden's cognitive decline and media cover up. There is no bottom for these people.
pic.twitter.com/rdNdqh4YKQ

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 26, 2025

"The whole point of this bill wasn't to get it passed. The whole point of this bill was to call out the hypocrisy."

BREAKING: Ohio lawmakers have proposed a new law that bans men from ejaculating without intent of conception, would fine men up to $10,000 per ejaculation. pic.twitter.com/eOtMUatSPt

— Daily Loud (@DailyLoud) February 14, 2025

If there's an exception for LGBTQ people, it seems you could avoid the $10,000 fine, by identifying as bisexual or "queer." Who could challenge you? You are what you say... among the kind of people who would institute an exception like this.

Not that anyone would ever really get charged. And obviously and admittedly, the bill will not get passed. Republicans control the Ohio legislature.

These Democrats are introducing The Conception Begins at Erection Act for rhetorical purposes. They want to expose hypocrisy within the anti-abortion group, which tends to say to women, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. 

ADDED: These Democrats present the idea of leveling. Since sexual intercourse only risks pregnancy for the women, the law should impose an equivalent burden on men. Equity = $10,000. This reminds me of the much-loved Kurt Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron," which begins:

"Elon Musk has announced an upcoming algorithm update for X, formerly known as Twitter, intended to promote more informative and entertaining content while reducing 'negativity"

"This change aims to enhance user experience by focusing on 'unregretted user-seconds,' where engagement is meaningful rather than just extensive. The update follows public discussions about how content visibility impacts free speech and platform dynamics, with some users and commentators expressing concerns over potential censorship or the stifling of diverse viewpoints."

That's what I'm reading at X in what is billed as "a summary of posts on X and may evolve over time. Grok can make mistakes, verify its outputs."

If you go to that link at a different time, will you see a different summary? Maybe! But trust me. What you see there is what I just copied, and you can see the time stamp on this post.

I can see I need to learn the term "unregretted user-seconds"! How does the machine know about regret?! Of course, I ask the machine for help. Oh! The answer is so different from my guess! I thought "user-seconds" might be the number of times users seconded a post — expressed agreement with it — by liking it or retweeting it. And I thought these reactions could be counted as "unregretted" if they were not subsequently deleted. But I see that "seconds" refers to the unit of time:

"In the manifesto, called 'War Against Humanity,' the author writes that they have 'grown to hate people, and society' and calls their parents 'scum.'"

"The author also writes that they acquired weapons 'by lies and manipulation, and my father's stupidity' and describes wanting to die by suicide, but feeling like carrying out a shooting was 'better for evolution rather than just one stupid boring suicide.'"

Writes Newsweek, in "Natalie Rupnow's Reported Manifesto: What We Know" (about the school shooting that took place in my city yesterday).

The use of the word "scum" in a manifesto makes me think of "SCUM Manifesto," a 1967 feminist document. I discussed it back in 2017, when Facebook was banning some women who wrote about men as "scum." The "SCUM Manifesto" begins: "'Life' in this 'society' being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of 'society' being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex."

And yet, this new manifesto — what I'm seeing of it, anyway — uses the language of gender neutrality: "Humanity... people... society... parents." There is, however, "father." I see that Newsweek is using they/them pronouns for the killer.

Newsweek also reports President Joe Biden's hasty response: "We need Congress to act. Now. From Newtown to Uvalde, Parkland to Madison.... Congress must pass commonsense gun safety laws: Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines...."

But when he pardoned his son Hunter for violating existing gun laws, Joe Biden attacked the prosecution as unfair and biased. One might have thought he'd refrain from calling for more gun laws when he so recently and conspicuously treated a gun law as not justifying enforcement. And yet didn't we all expect it — expect that next time there's a school shooting, Joe would indignantly cry out for more gun laws? #hypocrisy

Succinct perfection in hypocrisy.

The most overpaid actress ever. pic.twitter.com/2tx3PqdA8c

— MAZE (@mazemoore) December 6, 2024

"Am I the only one in the city being lectured on dates about Burning Man?..."

"... I hadn’t even finished chewing my first mouthful of pasta before his 37-minute tale began. (Yes, I timed it.) He fiddled excitedly with a loose dreadlock as I once again fell victim to an eternity of spiritual mansplaining. The formula was all too familiar. A compulsory mention of the 10 'core principles' of Burning Man, which, in more obnoxious settings, have also been referred to as 'the truths.' 'Inclusion is the core of our culture' he said. 'It’s written in the charter.'... [A]ttending Burning Man often costs a minimum of $5,000. And what kind of person my age, early career, has nine days to spend frolicking in a desert?..."

Writes Cate Twining-Ward, in "Men, Please Stop Talking About Burning Man/Am I the only woman meeting Burning Mansplainers on dates?" (NYT)(free-access link).

"I said, Wouldn’t it really be bad? … wouldn’t it be terrible to throw the president’s wife and the former secretary of state — think of it, the former secretary of state — but the president’s wife into jail?"

"But they want to do it. So, you know, it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to, and it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them.... It’s a terrible precedent for our country.... Does that mean the next president does it to them? That’s really the question."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump again suggests political opponents may face prosecution, too/In an interview with Newsmax that aired Tuesday evening, the former president said 'it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to, and it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them'" (WaPo).

He didn't set the precedent. And he calls it a "terrible precedent." But should he guarantee that he won't follow the "terrible precedent"? I think he's primarily making the argument that what's happening to him should stop. He's making the argument in a way that is, I presume, intended to feel threatening. 

Bill Maher: "Don't go to college." And: "If you absolutely have to go, don't go to an elite college"

"It just makes you stupid."

Contains the line: "Harvard Yard is the Wuhan wet market."

Watch the whole thing so you see that Maher somehow ends up lashing out at right-wing politicians and Supreme Court Justices — displaying photos of of 15 of them and declaring these faces "utterly punchable." We see Paul Begala guffawing. No one seems to notice the embrace of violence here, even as Maher just got done lambasting students for endorsing/accepting the massacre in Israel.

"Many in America are asking why President Trump is being prosecuted for doing the very same thing Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have done..."

"... and the answer is very simple. Like a third-world corrupt dictator, Biden will use any means necessary to stop the one Republican he knows he can't beat."

So ends an effective 10-minute ad from the Trump campaign, which you can view at "Trump Campaign: Democrats "Violently Claimed The Last Three Republican Presidential Wins Were Stolen" (RCP).

I don't see the factual basis for "Violently Claimed." But maybe that's the point. To get people — including Trump opponents — to react, thus upping the virality of the video. And it's predictable what the answer will be: Trump is accused of violence, when his claims about the election were not violent. It's just the fair play of turnabout. 

What I like about that 10-minute video is the meaty montage of prominent Democrats claiming — over and over — that the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections were stolen. Every time, in this century, that the Republican won, Democrats persisted in claiming they'd actually won. They firmly voiced their belief — real or fake — that the election was stolen. And some of that was clearly fake. They knew the claim that the Russians colluded was a lie. How could they not?

By the way, I'd embed that 10-minute video here if I had the code, but RCP doesn't offer embed code, and I've looked elsewhere. I couldn't find it at Truth Social, it's not at Trump's YouTube account, and I've tried Googling.

He knows you are, but what is he?

"Look, when there’s no need for your rhetoric not to be lazy, you land on lazy rhetoric. If you can carry the day — at least with those who you’re most worried about convincing — with little effort or logical consistency, why bother putting in the effort or assembling that consistency? If your target audience hasn’t even heard the nuances that undercut your point, why bother rebutting those nuances?"

Writes Philip Bump in "The impressively weak effort to ‘whatabout’ Biden’s classified documents" (WaPo).

If you genuinely believe there is something that shouldn't be talked about...

... you can't break your silence to talk about how other people are talking about it.

It is as if "Animal Farm" had never been written.

How many stories about politics have been told through non-human animal characters?

I want freedom of speech and abhor the prosecution described here, but the Editorial Board of The Washington Post is writing in a ludicrously ignorant style (and this is no context for intentional humor):

What is so frightening and subversive about a children’s book series featuring a flock of sheep? That is a question for Hong Kong authorities, who on Wednesday convicted the books’ creators on charges of sedition....

The picture books in question, written for children aged 4 to 7, depict sheep trying to protect their village from a pack of wolves. The series contained indirect references to social issues.... Even this implied criticism was too much for prosecutors, who claimed the books “indoctrinated” readers and disseminated “separatist” ideas.....

If there were any questions remaining about how far authorities will go to silence dissent, Wednesday’s conviction offers an ominous clue: Not even illustrated children’s books are safe.

Not even? I would think the literature given to children would be the first thing you would want to control. (It's something we fight about in America.) And if turning the characters into non-human animals got you off the hook for criminal charges, all the criminals would turn their characters into non-human animals.

The problem is the use of criminal law against political speech, and this isn't a distinctively Chinese idea:

Now, Hong Kong authorities appear to be weaponizing British-era sedition statutes to stifle criticism.

Oh! Imagine taking a statute that just happens to be on the books and enforcing it. But here in America, elite writers are deploying the word "sedition" and eyeing the sedition laws that we have on the books.

Just to look in The Washington Post, here's one of your columnists writing last June: "The sedition didn’t stop on Jan. 6. It must be stopped." And there's this article from last May: "How My Hometown Produced a Jan. 6 Sedition Suspect/One writer discovers her small Virginia town’s underside of conspiracy, guns and anti-government belief." And this, from June, about a real "seditious conspiracy" case: "Proud Boys, Tarrio blast sedition charge as politically orchestrated."

ADDED: The author of the June column "The sedition didn’t stop on Jan. 6. It must be stopped" and the first person on the list of "Members of the Editorial Board" — found at the bottom of the editorial about the Hong Kong sedition trial — are the same person: Karen Tumulty. 

A nice, precise 10 for today. Here it is, Althouse-curated TikTok. You can rank them, like that lady ranked the lyrics of "It's Corn."

1. The vacation on TikTok vs. Reality.

2. The price of an overnight stay — with breakfast and a beautiful view — in Kyrgystan.

3. What country is longest, north to south?

4. The lines of "It's Corn" — ranked.

5. Spend $80,000 on a truck....

6. Sometimes a m-f talks nice to your face...

7. The phrase "we love that for you."

8. She believes she is still 70.

9. Ricky Gourmet reads the letter his 12-year-old self wrote him.

10. Trying to read.

"You're saying you're content with the left-wing conspiracy to prevent somebody being democratically re-elected as President?

That's a question provoked by something Sam Harris says in this video. His instant answer is "It's not left wing. Liz Cheney is not left wing." 

Pushed with the question, "You're` content with a conspiracy to prevent somebody being democratically elected President?" Harris stutters and gets out: "It was a conspiracy out in the open." Then: "But it doesn't matter — what part's conspiracy, what part's out in the open." More stumbling, then a retreat into outer space: "If there was an asteroid hurtling toward earth and we got in a room together with all of our friends and had a conversation of what we could do to deflect its course, is that a conspiracy?"

The video clip I'm seeing on Twitter ends there. I would respond to "Is that a conspiracy?" with Is that an analogy?