"Govan pushed back on the idea that land art requires plentiful ego. With the typical monument..."

"... he said, powerful people 'caused workers to build things in honor of gods, heroes, battles won and the usual.' Works of land art like 'Star Axis' are 'specks in the scale of the landscape. They’re not monuments to anything except the fragility of our own perception and experience.'"

Govan is Michael Govan, director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

That's from "He’s the Last Great Land Artist You’ve Never Heard of/Charles Ross spent 50 years building 'Star Axis,' a naked-eye observatory in New Mexico. Now his masterwork is ready. How to share it with a changed world?" (NYT).

That's a gift link, and henceforth all NYT links will be gift links. Just yesterday, I was describing the effort of conserving gift links, with only 10 permitted each month, and this morning I wake up to find the new policy is unlimited gift links:

"It’s tempting to treat this as a story of one flawed man and a vetting process that failed.... But the more uncomfortable lesson..."

"... is the one that the Platner boom offered before the bust. The hunger that lifted him — the overflow crowds, the volunteer armies, the sense that here, at last, was someone who meant it — was real.... Handed the chance to litigate what the party actually believes, Democrats have mostly declined.... Mr. Platner’s appeal was never really about oysters or facial hair. It was that he seemed to stand for something. He was angry on voters’ behalf about an economy that seems rigged for the powerful, and he was unafraid to say so. People responded to the promise of conviction. That signal is the one the party ought to be reading. The tragedy of a campaign like his is not only that it collapsed, as it deserved to, but that so much energy was poured into a messenger before anyone was sure of the message...."

So says the New York Times Editorial Board, in "The Democrats Can’t Go On Like This.

So "he seemed to stand for something," but we really don't know what, and instead of letting us argue publicly about what that message was and whether it is what we want, they took out the man. I think they had the ability all along to destroy him as a man, but they propped him up as a man. The Nazi tattoo was somehow okay! But when they decided they needed to replace him (presumably, because he wasn't going to win), they used the personal material to take him out.

Here's how Platner himself explained it as he bowed to the Party's demand that he drop the nomination the primary voters had given him: "I think it's really important to understand why this is happening in the timeline, why this is happening right now.... there is a reason that this is happening now...."

Meade: "Super bloggable, no?" Me: "trying to find an inroad/the photo is overwhelming emotionally"

That's the text conversation here in Meadhouse after I send this to Meade:

 

The eagle — encrusted in gold and seemingly headless — launches into flight, away from us.

Let's see what the particular example of corruption this is — this, the worst example ever. There's never even ever been anything like this. Do you know what example this one is? There have been reactions of horror to so many things Trump has done, but "corruption" is a key hint, suggesting a money grab, and yes, you guessed right, didn't you?

"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.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against The New York Times on Tuesday..."

"... claiming that the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' and had discriminated against a white male employee who did not get a sought-after promotion.... The complaint quotes from Times diversity and inclusion reports in recent years, including a 2021 'Call to Action' that set a goal of increasing the number of Black and Latino employees. The reports 'detailed N.Y.T.’s express efforts to make employment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals,' the complaint says. 'A decrease in the percentage of White male employees (whether new hires, existing employees or those in leadership, as appropriate) was a necessary consequence for the N.Y.T. to achieve these results.'..."

The New York Times examines litigation brought against it, in "U.S. Sues The New York Times, Claiming Discrimination Against a White Man/The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the paper had engaged in 'unlawful employment practices' against the man, who did not get a sought-after promotion."

"According to the complaint, the complainant was interviewed for the job but was not selected for a panel interview. 'The four candidates advanced to the panel interview stage matched the race and/or sex characteristics N.Y.T. sought to increase in its leadership,' the complaint says. According to the complaint, the final pool of candidates consisted of 'a white woman, a Black man, an Asian female and a multiracial female.'..."

What do you think is more likely?

There was something wrong with that one white male employee who didn't advance to the panel interview.

That one man exemplifies how many white men have fared at the NYT and elsewhere over the years.

 

pollcode.com free polls

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:

Trump's 9 posts of the last hour... including, at #7, "A GREAT AND BRILLIANT DAY FOR THE WORLD!"

From his account at Truth Social:

1. "The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear 'Dust,' created by our great B2 Bombers - No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form. This deal is in no way subject to Lebanon, either, but the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!! Thank you! President DJT"

2. "Now that the Hormuz Strait situation is over, I received a call from NATO asking if we would need some help. I TOLD THEM TO STAY AWAY, UNLESS THEY JUST WANT TO LOAD UP THEIR SHIPS WITH OIL. They were useless when needed, a Paper Tiger! President DJT"

3. "Thank you to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar for your great bravery and help! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

4. "Iran, with the help of the U.S.A., has removed, or is removing, all sea mines! Thank you! President DJT"

5. "Again! This deal is not tied, in any way, to Lebanon, but we will, MAKE LEBANON GREAT AGAIN!"

6. "Thank you to Pakistan and its Great Prime Minister and Field Marshall, two fantastic people!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

7. "A GREAT AND BRILLIANT DAY FOR THE WORLD! DJT"

8. "Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again. It will no longer be used as a weapon against the World! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

9. "The Failing New York Times, FAKE NEWS CNN, and others, just don’t know what to do. They are desperately looking for a reason to criticize President Donald J. Trump on the Iran situation, but just can’t find it. Why don’t they just say, at the right time, JOB WELL DONE, MR. PRESIDENT, and start to gain back their credibility???"

"Mr. Trump projected sang-froid about it all on Friday. 'I don’t mind anything having to do with Epstein,'"

"But he was talking about it again because of something his wife chose to do. Was he upset that she had single-handedly thrust this story that had so bedeviled him back onto front pages around the globe? 'No,' he said. 'I never get upset.' He said that after he watched Mrs. Trump’s statement, he thought to himself: 'She had a right to talk about it, because the fake news covers her so inaccurately. Would I have done it that way?' the president mused. 'Perhaps not, perhaps, I don’t know.'"

Writes Shawn McCreesh, in "Trump Says First Lady ‘Had a Right’ to Talk About Epstein/President Trump said in an interview that he had known his wife wanted to address rumors about the late sex offender at some point, but that he had not known exactly what she would say" (NYT).

My search of the NYT archive included a term that wasn't in the article: Ungaro. I was looking, as I usually do, for elite media coverage of a story I am seeing in lowlier media, which I generally eschew. In this case, that would be things like "Amanda Ungaro Arrived in the U.S. on Jeffrey Epstein's Plane at 17 — Now She's Going After Melania Trump From Brazil" (Yahoo!news). I guess you can say I'm just seeing one of those things the NYT deems not "fit to print."

Anyway... I enjoy Shawn McCreesh's writing at the NYT. I love the coverage of Trump's enigmatic responses. "I never get upset" — what a perfect answer to the question whether you are upset. It can't be true, but one appreciates the sang-froid.

Great word, sang-froid. Lord Byron used it in Don Juan:

In the mean time, cross-legg'd, with great sang-froid,

     Among the scorching ruins he sat smoking
Tobacco on a little carpet....

"A Visit to the Unabomber Cabin, 30 Years After the Arrest/A complicated piece of American heritage and culture sits intact in the F.B.I. headquarters."

This NYT article is inspiring 2 types of response response from commenters over there.

The first type:

Although this was quite the story 30 years ago, I have no interest in preserving this structure and potentially romanticizing or mythologizing it like we did with the outlaw murderer, Jesse James. Please don't speak of this killers hut in the same breath as Thoreau's or Lincoln's cabins. I say put a match to it and post the video. 

 The second:

Saying this may put me on a list, but everyone should read his manifesto, "Industrial Society and its Future." It's one of the most compelling and profound analyses of what ails the modern world I've ever read. Just to be clear: just because his ideas are worth engaging with doesn't remotely justify his barbaric crimes.

"The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy. It has wrought misery since its revolution 47 years ago — on its own people, on its neighbors..."

"... and around the world. It massacred thousands of protesters this year. It imprisons and executes political dissidents. It oppresses women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and religious minorities. Its leaders have impoverished their own citizens while corruptly enriching themselves. They have proclaimed 'Death to America' since coming to power and killed hundreds of U.S. service members in the region, as well as bankrolled terrorism that has killed civilians in the Middle East and as far away as Argentina. Iran’s government presents a distinct threat because it combines this murderous ideology with nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly defied international inspectors over the years. Since the June attack, the government has shown signs of restarting its pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. American presidents of both parties have rightly made a commitment to prevent Tehran from getting a bomb...."

But "Trump’s Attack on Iran is Reckless," in the estimation of The Editorial Board of the NYT (gift link).

There's a link on "massacred" that goes to another NYT article: "How Iran Crushed a Citizen Uprising With Lethal Force" (gift link).

Unique Way/True and Life.

My son Chris sends another photograph from New York City:

"For people who make and sell beef tallow, a golden age has dawned. Consumers spent $9.9 million on food-grade beef tallow in 2025...."

"Jars of it landed on the shelves of Costco this year, and big retailers like Walmart and Target sell it. Fat Brothers beef tallow sells for almost $20 for 14 ounces on Amazon, and business is brisk... Jenni Harris is a fifth-generation rancher whose father in the late 1990s transformed their small conventional cattle feeding operation in South Georgia to an organic one where cows are raised on pasture. She remembers a time when they had no market for the fat from the animals they slaughtered. 'We damn near gave it away' she said...."

From "Beef Tallow, Long a Health Pariah, Rises to the Top of the Food Pyramid/The new dietary guidelines give federal approval to a fat that has slowly caught on with consumers, even as doctors have warned against it" (NYT).

Have you made the transition from seed oils to beef tallow? Or do you think butter is tracking the new food pyramid well enough? Or do you think this new fat advice is just crazy?

I'm reading the comments over there, including: "The man is barefoot as he stands next to a vat of hot oil while removing a drippy bird. What can go wrong?" And: "Anyone that works over a vat of 400 degree oil barefoot shouldnt be in charge of anything safety-related be it food, drugs, or healthcare."

They're responding to this photo, which is taken from RFK Jr.'s own social media:

And I like the NYT's correction at the bottom: "An earlier version of this article misstated how much consumers spent on beef tallow in 2025. It was $9.9 million, not $900 million." That's kind of a never mind correction. They wrote this whole article about the hot new business that is beef tallow and then it turned out to be on 1.1% of what they thought it was!

What's worse, the Secretary of Health's risky approach to home cooking or The New York Times's embarrassing and extreme botching of the dollar amount as it conducts its supposedly professional journalism?

And by the way, while RFK's feet deserve some attention, a lot of us are noticing his torso. He's 71 years old, and look at him. And he's eating beef tallow.

"Now the senator came down here/Showing ev’ryone his gun/Handing out free tickets/To the wedding of his son."

"An’ me, I nearly got busted/An’ wouldn’t it be my luck/To get caught without a ticket/And be discovered beneath a truck...."

Sang Bob Dylan, in his most-Bob-Dylan song, "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again."

I'm just trying to read The New York Times* and the headline is "Handing Out Free Tickets, Mamdani Says Theater Should Not Be 'a Luxury.'"

What's with these politicians handing out free tickets? I'm suspicious, but maybe the mayor's just flaky, pie-in-the-sky.

“The shared laughter in a crowded theater, the eager debrief after a musical, the heavy silence that hangs over all of us in a drama — these are moments that every New Yorker deserves,” Mamdani said later, explaining the initiative during a news conference at one of the festival’s venues, Brooklyn College’s Leonard and Claire Tow Center for the Performing Arts.

That quote is wild. What man of the people would say "the eager debrief after a musical"? He seems like more of a poet... an abstruse poet. 

There was once a country ruled by a poet. It was Václav Havel, the last president of Czechoslovakia. 

_________________________________

* If you're with me in Bob Dylandom, you just thought "shoot a few holes, blow their minds." But I don't like seeing those words today, in the shadow of the killing of Renee Good, and there they are along with "showing ev’ryone his gun" and "discovered beneath a truck" — truck ≈ SUV.

"In a wide-ranging conversation with four Times reporters, President Trump talked about the Minneapolis ICE shooting, immigration, Venezuela and even his plans for further White House renovations."

I see "Trump Sits Down With Times Reporters for Two-Hour Interview," the headline in the NYT.

There's no substance, just an announcement:

The Times’s coverage of the president’s remarks will include stories, newsletters and videos over the coming days, as well as an episode of The Daily on Friday. A transcript of the interview will be published.

Very bold of Trump to give all that access — and right in the middle of a week packed with quickly unfolding action and with only the full transcript to protect him. I like that the Times is breaking out the material in separate bits.

The first bit is: "We Pressed Trump on His Conclusion About the ICE Shooting. Here’s What He Said. The exchange was a glimpse into the president’s reflexive defense of his federal crackdown on immigration." It could have been a much more reflexive defense of the ICE agents. His first take was balanced: "I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either." And later, he says: "She behaved horribly. And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over" — I would say that's a reflexive defense of the woman. How does he know she didn't try to run the agent over? 

Also, the NYT writes "When we pressed Mr. Trump on his conclusion that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, tried to run over the agent," but technically, the first quote is not a statement that she tried to run anyone over. It's a distanced, abstract statement: "I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either." I'm not seeing the follow-up question quoted, but I think it shouldn't have been "Why are you concluding that Good tried to run over the agent?" but "Are you saying you've determined that Good tried to run over the agent?" [Or better, to avoid ambiguity: "Are you saying you've determined that Good intended to run over the agent?"]

The second article based on the interview is "Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years/In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, President Trump said 'only time will tell' when it comes to how long the United States aims to control the country" (NYT).

The NYT puzzles over the Nick Shirley video.

I'm reading "An Intense White House Response From a Single Viral Video/A video purporting to expose extensive fraud at child care centers in Minnesota shows the relationship between the Trump administration and self-described citizen journalists" (NYT).

A 43-minute video posted online in the past week, purporting to expose extensive fraud at Somali-run child care centers in Minnesota, has been viewed by millions of people. It has also set off a series of events that show the symbiotic relationship between the Trump administration and self-described citizen journalists.

"Over nearly two decades, as Mr. Trump cut a swath through the party circuits of New York and Florida, Mr. Epstein was perhaps his most reliable wingman."

"During the 1990s and early 2000s, they prowled Mr. Epstein’s Manhattan mansion and Mr. Trump’s Plaza Hotel, at least one of Mr. Trump’s Atlantic City casinos and both their Palm Beach homes. They visited each other’s offices and spoke often by phone, according to other former Epstein employees and women who spent time in his homes. With other men, Mr. Epstein might discuss tax shelters, international affairs or neuroscience. With Mr. Trump, he talked about sex...."

I'm reading "'Don’s Best Friend': How Epstein and Trump Bonded Over the Pursuit of Women/The president has tried to minimize their friendship, but documents and interviews reveal an intense and complicated relationship. Chasing women was a game of ego and dominance. Female bodies were currency" (NYT). That's in the middle of the NYT home page right now. I thought you should know. Trump chased women. And there's a concept — pushed by the NYT for political purposes — that chasing women can be a game of ego and dominance and that female bodies can be used as "currency."

A more interesting example of the NYT's Epstein journalism is this from a couple days ago: "What to Know About the Origins of Jeffrey Epstein’s Wealth/The sources of Epstein’s fortune have long been a source of speculation. Here are six takeaways from a Times investigation that found that he built it through scams, theft and lies." There's a comment over there that expresses my reaction to the story.... Oh! The comments section is gone! I'll get it from the Wayback Machine.... Oh! "Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." Well, I guess I could try to reconstruct it. The idea was that the article completely fails to explain how Epstein acquired his fortune. It identifies the steps and names the men who assisted him in making these inexplicable steps but gives no clue why those men were motivated to give him so much money and responsibility. It's not at all "What to know." It's very obvious that the reader is deprived of the main thing we want to know when we read the article.

"Echoing President Trump’s call for classical style in federal architecture, Mr. Rubio’s order cited the origins of serif typefaces in Roman antiquity."

"Those typefaces, which are used by The New York Times, include small strokes at the edges of many characters. Admirers say those flourishes make letters look more elegant and make them easier to distinguish from one another, even though they can also create a sense of clutter. Serif typefaces are 'generally perceived to connote tradition, formality and ceremony,' Mr. Rubio’s order said, adding that they were used by the White House, Supreme Court and other state and federal government entities, as well as in the script on the side of Air Force One...."

From "At State Dept., a Typeface Falls Victim in the War Against Woke/Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the Biden-era move to the sans serif typeface 'wasteful,' casting the return to Times New Roman as part of a push to stamp out diversity efforts'" (NYT).

It's bizarre that wanting things to look normal again is counted as part of a "War Against Woke." I think the NYT is putting it that way to try to make sense of what the former administration did.

Why would the State Department want its official correspondence in the font you see here?

We're told the idea was to make reading easier for persons with dyslexia. Well, maybe, but that Calibri font seems to convey a message of informality or even humility. Don't take us so seriously, world.

Instead of holding the former administration to account for its poor choice, the new administration is framed as hostile to a vulnerable group!

"The people around him are similar to Biden’s aides. They would talk as if we’re living in a little bit of a fantasy world."

"Trump, in that way, with the help of his aides and his doctors have created this fiction about his health to hide the hard, cold truth that he is 79 and one of the oldest people to ever occupy the Oval Office.”

Said political historian Matthew Dallek, quoted in "Shorter Days, Signs of Fatigue: Trump Faces Realities of Aging in Office/President Trump has always used his stamina and energy as a political strength. But that image is getting harder for him to sustain" (NYT).

Is this even news at all? What's news to me and why I'm blogging this is that the NYT is displayed at the top of the home page as if it's the top news story of the day:

"... House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax..."

"... perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown.' The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein,' are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.... Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can’t let that happen. Let’s... not fall into the Epstein “TRAP,” which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

So says Trump, over on Truth Social.

His post is the top story right now at the NYT and the Washington Post, which of course had to throw cold water on Trump's seeming enthusiasm for full exposure:

The NYT: "It was unclear how quickly Mr. Trump’s tightly controlled Justice Department might release files on Mr. Epstein, or whether the president’s seeming backing of the idea might speed such a release, regardless of the vote....." Seeming backing.... The NYT is reading this news as I read all news. Skeptically. Somebody says something, whether they mean it is another matter. Trump is playing a sophisticated (or chaotic) game. This is just one move.

WaPo highlights Chuck Schumer's reaction: "The vote is to compel YOU to release them. Let’s make this easier. Just release the files now." And: "Legal experts raised concerns over the weekend that Trump’s demand for a new investigation could give Justice Department officials an excuse not to release all the documents."