"In my ideal society, we would vote as households. I would ordinarily be the one to cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household."

Said the pastor Toby Sumpter, quoted in "Pete Hegseth reposts video that says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote/Progressive evangelical group says ideas shared by pastors and amplified by defense secretary are 'very disturbing'" (The Guardian)

1. What are you saying when you repost something? I post things I don't agree with all the time. Often my posting means: This is obviously a terrible idea. Or: This is weirdly interesting.

2. Sumpter's idea is weirdly interesting: He's talking about his "ideal society." I could see saying: In an ideal society, we wouldn't need voting at all. And we know what Jesus said about government.

3. How could we have voting at the "household" level without insane intrusion on everyone's privacy? Wilson doesn't seem to have thought about this since he's relying on the notion of what would "ordinarily" happen. And what would happen to the un-ordinary people? Maybe in Wilson's "ideal society," everyone is clustered into formal, officially designated families, but you can't get there from here, so it's a fantasy, for your contemplation. A weirdly interesting idea, as noted in point #1.

4. But, ooh, that terrible Hegseth!

ADDED: I've corrected the source of the quote which I'd mistakenly attributed to Doug Wilson, co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Wilson is also quoted, saying "I would like to see this nation being a Christian nation, and I would like this world to be a Christian world." And, before bringing up Sumpter, The Guardian says that Wilson "raises the idea of women not voting." That's confusing, though I should have been more careful. I've also swapped in the name Sumpter on point #2. Thanks to Aggie, in the comments, for pointing out this problem.

"Once people realized my glasses were full of tech, conversations often took a turn for the awkward — and they mostly unfolded the same way:"

"'Are you recording me?' (No, I’m not.) 'Where are the cameras?' (There aren’t any!) 'You’re really not recording me?' (No!)... Most of the time, people chose to take me at my word and the conversation continued (if a little icily.) Even in tech-heavy San Francisco, casual chats with people I have known for years sometimes turned tense after the glasses’ true nature were revealed. When asked, the most common reason people gave for why interactions took a turn for the awkward was a lingering concern that the glasses were listening anyway — even though they weren’t. The other big reason some people didn’t seem thrilled was a surprise: They thought I was ignoring them.... My wife still sometimes thinks I’m reading news headlines through the glasses even when I’m looking right at her.... [It's hard] to stay fully present with someone when a neon-green notification slides down in front of your eyes.... Some of these social issues may iron themselves out over time.... Until that happens, though, wearing smart glasses can make moving through the world feel a little socially graceless."

Writes Chris Velazco "I spent months living with smart glasses. People talk to me differently now. Eyeglasses are being augmented with screens, artificial intelligence and the power to unnerve people. We tested a pair to see how" (WaPo).

There's also this video. The most interesting part of that is Velazco's admission that his favorite use of the technology is to view inspirational messages that he has chosen for himself, such as: "You can do anything. You have what it takes. Just BELIEVE."

Imagine someone talking to you in person, looking in the direction of your eyes, but actually reading bullshit they've loaded into their glasses. May I suggest the inspirational message: Stay in the moment. Be spontaneous. The person in front of you might be a fully engaged HUMAN BEING!

"Divorce rumors have been following the Obamas for some time.... Michelle, as a solo artist, has been out and about..."

"... particularly as she promotes her podcast... She’s also been a regular guest on fellow famous people’s shows. This month alone, she went on Amy Poehler’s Good Hang to talk about bickering with Barack over their thermostat, and on The Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett, where she insisted once more that 'everyone would know' if she and Barack were breaking up. 'I’m not a martyr,' she said. 'I would be problem-solving in public: "Let me tell you what he did."'"

That's from New York Magazine, which has a sarcastic headline — "Michelle and Barack Obama Are Dating Again" — because it's pushing back on the New York Post article that's titled "Barack and Michelle Obama spotted on swanky date night in NYC as divorce rumors swirl."

Repeated insistence... sounds like protesting too much.

And is it really true that if she and Barack were breaking up she's be out in public, problem-solving, dishing on what he did? I'd like to think she would not, but it was only 5 days ago that I was blogging "Why are men's podcasts so different from women's...?" after Danica Patrick went on "The Sage Steele Show"

"People could never imagine that I would lack any confidence, or belief in the simple things about who I am."

"Everything was torn to bits. He leaves a trail of blood. I don’t think I’m saying too much earth-shattering stuff after we — there’s been enough out there. But it gave me the greatest gift, which is myself. It gave me the greatest gift of how much I needed to show up for myself and take care of myself."

Said Danica Patrick, on a podcast called "The Sage Steele Show," quoted in "Danica Patrick: 'Emotionally abusive' Aaron Rodgers relationship ‘wore me down to nothing'" (NY Post).

I saw that just as I'm in the middle of listening to Aaron Rogers on a new episode of Joe Rogan. Audio and transcript at Podscribe. I don't think Aaron talks about any of his relationships with women. Does he leave a trail of blood? He doesn't give a clue. He and Joe talk about vaccines, the pyramids, aliens, the Sean Combs trial, transwomen in women's sports. Juicy substantive topics.

Why are men's podcasts so different from women's and why do I only listen to the men's? Part of the answer is that I'm highly skeptical of female empowerment discourse — e.g., "the gift of how much I needed to show up for myself and take care of myself." It's not just that it's superficial and repetitious. I suspect that it's part of the subordination of women, not that it does men any good. 

"Neighbors soon grew frustrated with the constant hubbub at the house. They saw people coming and going carrying gun holsters..."

"... as the security team ballooned along with Mr. Musk’s safety concerns. Though Texas has permissive gun laws, the activity stood out. 'I call that place Fort Knox,' said Mr. Hemmer, a retired real estate agent who lives across the street and is president of the neighborhood homeowners association.... Mr. Hemmer, who has long owned a Tesla, grew so frustrated with his neighbor that he began flying a drone over the house to check for city violations, and he keeps a video camera trained on the property around the clock. Last year, he complained to West Lake Hills officials about Mr. Musk’s fence, the traffic and how he thought the owner was operating a security business from the property. Mr. Musk’s security team also contacted the West Lake Hills Police Department about Mr. Hemmer, according to city records. One security official accused Mr. Hemmer last year of standing naked in the street, according to the records. Mr. Hemmer denied that he was naked and said he was on his property wearing black underwear. On another night, he said, he was walking his dog fully clothed and stopped when he suddenly needed to urinate — which Mr. Musk’s camera captured. 'The cameras got me,' Mr. Hemmer said. 'It’s scary they have guys sitting and watching me pee.'"

I'm reading "Won’t You Be My Neighbor? No Thanks, Elon Musk. Residents of an upscale enclave outside Austin, Texas, learned the hard way what it’s like when a multibillionaire moves into the mansion next door. Some of them have started a ruckus over it" (NYT).

Some screwy details in that story — Texans bothered by holstered guns, flying a spy drone into your neighbor's airspace then complaining that he's got cameras aimed out at the street where you took the liberty to pee, that whole nakedness-or-black-underwear conundrum....

In any case, doesn't Elon have his own city now? I'm reading "Voters Approve Incorporation of SpaceX Hub as Starbase, Texas/A South Texas community, mostly made up of SpaceX employees, voted 212 to 6 in favor of establishing a new city called Starbase" (NYT).

You can wear a device that records everything you say and, through A.I., advises you, on a daily basis, about how you can improve your communication skills.

I'm reading "This disc records everything you say — to make you a better person/Limitless hopes its AI wearable device will be used as a life coach and productivity tool by millions" (London Times).

“Practise more active listening and patience when interacting with your kids, especially when they’re seeking your attention,” one notification read that popped up on his smartphone. “Sometimes you get caught up in your own tasks or thoughts and may not fully engage the moment with your children.”

The advice was followed by a transcript, recorded at 9.09am the previous day, when Siroker, a start-up founder, was clearly distracted while his six-year-old clamoured for attention. “It’s hard to hear this, because I didn’t realise …. I’m a good dad,” Siroker trailed off. “But now I can go back to that time, and say, ‘Hey, what was I doing at 9.09 that was so damn important?’”

Presumably, the child is also recorded. Does the A.I. critique the child too?  

The microphone is always on! You end up with searchable document of everything it records. And by "you," I mean anyone who uses one of these things. I hope whoever they are, they use it only for its intended purpose: To improve communication. The privacy problems are obvious, but it's only a matter of time. These things — like the cameras everywhere — are inevitable. 

"I just deleted my account. I only signed up for this bc my younger brother had suspicions that our Dad was not his real biological father..."

"... and that he and I were just so.....different.....from our older siblings. They had no interest in education beyond high school (surprise surprise, they all voted for Trump), while he and I were voracious re: higher education. So he signed up and discovered that he was right. He told me the deal and asked if I would sign up too, bc he trusted me to not freak out. Sure enough, we have the same bio-dad and my bro eventually discovered that we have 2 half-siblings that he met up with in January and introduced me to them via Zoom. Strange feeling."

A comment at the Washington Post article, "Delete your DNA from 23andMe right now
The genetic information company declared bankruptcy on Sunday, and California’s attorney general has issued a privacy 'consumer alert.'"

There are also plenty of comments expressing doubt that the data really is deleted. I was just highly amused to find another example of Trump showing up everywhere. Also, this man is flattering himself for his virtuous liberalism and, at the same time, expressing a belief in genetic determinism.

"In the months he is not on the road, that bandwidth is preserved at what is believed to be his primary residence, a rocky estate..."

"... located on the promontory of Point Dume, Malibu, a 'no trespassing' sign hanging across the narrow driveway of his property. Who he lives with is, like the rest of his life, a mystery, but his grandchildren are regular visitors. His neighbours are careful to maintain his privacy too. 'It’s a big honour to have such a beautiful artist as your neighbour,' says Veronica Brady, an award-winning documentary-maker. 'He lives in a very secluded area and everyone respects his privacy. But it’s exciting to have the sight and sound of him around us.' Even if that sound might include his welding workshop. In 2013 Dylan... exhibited his collection of metal gates.... 'Gates appeal to me because of the negative space they allow,' he said in the brochure. 'They can shut you out or shut you in. And in some ways there is no difference.'"

From "At 83, what drives Bob Dylan? We ask the people who know him best/The most enigmatic man in music is on a gruelling tour — and even sharing restaurant tips on social media" (London Times).

To me, Bob Dylan has made his private life seem completely uninteresting and beside the point. I like that. Go in through the music.

"[O]blivion is restorative: we come apart in order to come back together. (Sleep is a case in point; without a nightly suspension of our rational faculties, we go nuts.)"

"Another is the notion that oblivion is integral to the possibility of personal evolution. 'The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning,' Foucault writes. To do so, however, you must believe that the future can be different from the past—a belief that becomes harder to sustain when one is besieged by information, as the obsessive documentation of life makes it 'more fixed, more factual, with less ambiguity and life-giving potentiality.' Oblivion, by setting aside a space for forgetting, offers a refuge from this 'excess of memory,' and thus a standpoint from which to imagine alternative futures. Oblivion is also essential for human dignity. Because we cannot be fully known, we cannot be fully instrumentalized. Immanuel Kant urged us to treat others as ends in themselves, not merely as means.... [O]ur obscurities are precisely what endow us with a sense of value that exceeds our usefulness.... The modernist city promised anonymity, reinvention. The Internet is devoid of such pleasures. It is more like a village: a place where your identity is fixed...."

Writes Ben Tarnoff, in "What Is Privacy For? We often want to keep some information to ourselves. But information itself may be the problem" (The New Yorker).

The article is mostly about the book "The Right to Oblivion: Privacy and the Good Life," by Lowry Pressly (commission earned).

ADDED: Here, I made you an "Oblivion" playlist:

The woman who says she's the Martha from "Baby Reindeer" — which Netflix bills as a "true story" — gets cornered by Piers Morgan.

I'm jumping to a point 34 minutes in where Morgan questions Fiona Harvey about the tens of thousands of emails the writer Richard Gadd says she sent to him. Harvey, a lawyer, is threatening to sue, and she knows that if the emails were sent they will be produced in that lawsuit. "These are easily provable things," Morgan says. "He's either got them or he hasn't." Watch the dramatics and tell me if you think she's credible. Either she or Gadd is lying.

Yes, Gadd is an artist, and he should be able to use his own life as source material and to process it into an interesting show, but he has stated that the story is true and the show, which is very successful, is promoted as a true story. Gadd has asserted that he has changed things to protect the privacy of real people, most notably "Martha," a vivid and fascinating stalker, but Martha was easily identified as Fiona Harvey. Direct quotes used in the show appeared in Harvey's social media.

The obvious complexity is that Harvey is saying both that she is and she isn't Martha. You have to first identify her as the character before you can accuse Gadd of lying about her. If you watch the clip, you'll see how difficult her position is. But maybe she's a liar and a stalker. If not, what is she? Should she be on TV explaining herself, cornered and (to my eye) terrified? If she is Martha — and if Gadd's presentation is true — she has serious mental problems.

"Writing about one’s own children has always been a delicate matter. It’s itchy and complicated..."

"... and there is no right way to do it. As a child who was often a subject of the writing of my mother, Erica Jong... I have very mixed feelings about the phenomenon. I like to think I truly hated being written about, but who can remember? Later, I found it gave me a profound lack of shame and no expectation of privacy, which helped me pursue a public-facing career I might otherwise not have...."

Writes Molly Jong-Fast, in "When Your Mom Is Famous for Hating Motherhood/In Heidi Reimer’s novel, 'The Mother Act,' a daughter grapples with being parented (or not) by an actress who happily mines her life for material" (NYT).

"Personally, I have found that there is no solution for having a parent who uses your life for content. There is no salve for the resentment it produces. Would I have been normal had my mom not written about me?... Am I uncomfortable on this planet because I always knew my mom was squirreled away working on a novel in which I would figure prominently, once as twins?"

By the way, Erica Jong is still alive — she's 82 — and Molly Jong-Fast has children of her own — 3 of them.

What was your mom doing when she was squirreled away? Did it make you "uncomfortable on this planet"? Or are we all, always, residents of our mother's planet? In which case, why are you not comfortable in the world you were born into — born out of?

"Please don’t speculate on who any of the real-life people could be. That’s not the point of our show."

Said Richard Gadd, whose brilliant Netflix series "Baby Reindeer" is a fictionalized version of his own true story, quoted in "Baby Reindeer creator asks fans to stop speculating about stalker/Richard Gadd says his real-life friends are being unfairly targeted as viewers try to guess the identity of characters in his Netflix series" (London Times).

So the point of the show is not to focus viewers on the question of what really happened and whether there are free-roaming individuals who deserve punishment or public shaming. What then is the point? Having watched the whole series, I'd say it is to open up thinking about the cyclical cause-and-effect of sexual abuse.

I encourage discussion in the comments from people who have seen the show, so I am not asking you to avoid spoilers. If you haven't seen the show, I'd recommend avoiding reading spoilers. Here's the trailer, which spoils a little, so it would be better to just start watching, unless you're wary of a show on this subject and need some encouragement.

"Selling TikTok to a big tech company such as Google, Meta or Microsoft — after all, who else could afford its estimated price of $84 billion? — would not make U.S. users’ data more secure."

"In fact, it would simply give the tech giant buying it a new trove of information about all of us that the new owner could use to enhance its already astoundingly detailed portraits. Right now, for example, Google has most of my email, my documents, my web-browsing behavior and my search queries. The videos I watch on TikTok are, in fact, among the few things it doesn’t have. Adding those videos would add valuable new data to its dossier on me and allow it to monetize it with advertisers, data brokers and anyone else that uses its self-service online advertising platforms and services."

Writes Julia Angwin, in "TikTok Could Disappear but the Problems It Poses Remain" (NYT).

"At the Pentagon, staffers often share the meme of Homer Simpson backing into a hedge and disappearing from view to characterize their boss’s aversion to any limelight."

"But that reticence, [Lloyd] Austin’s backers say, reflects decades of cultural challenges for a Black man who has succeeded in the military by learning not to showcase too much of himself.... It has been more than a year since he appeared in the Pentagon briefing room to talk to reporters, and he usually avoids reporters who travel with him on his plane trips. Ditto for much of his staff; when traveling, he prefers to dine alone in his hotel room when he doesn’t have a scheduled engagement with a foreign counterpart. He does not like to schmooze or engage in lubricating political relationships.... He rarely bothers to defend himself to political critics.... 'We have now politicized a deeply personal and private issue in a deeply personal and private man,' Adm. Mike Mullen, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said in an interview. 'We should move on.'..."

Writes Helene Cooper, in "Lloyd Austin Confronts the Perils of Being a Private Man in a Public Job/President Biden said his defense secretary made an error in judgment in not keeping the White House informed of his hospitalization. But keeping a low profile has long defined the Pentagon chief" (WaPo).

"What explains the disjunction between the remote figure in the photos and the loving grandmother who once harvested onions?"

"Was it just the Trump family attempt at privacy? Or was it too hard for the media to make sense of a grandmother who seemed to prefer Manolos to fuzzy slippers?... Now, with her passing, we are learning more about Mrs. Knavs, and can connect the dots from her hardscrabble beginnings in a former Soviet bloc country to her recent life in Palm Beach. Acknowledging Mrs. Knavs’s origins during her lifetime might have gone a long way toward softening Mrs. Trump’s image during her time as first lady. Instead, Mrs. Knavs was presented to us as a near clone of her daughter, a retinal after-image of Mrs. Trump’s own inscrutable glamour."

So ends "The Inscrutable Glamour of Melania Trump’s Mother In public, Amalija Knavs did not adhere to the stereotypes of an American grandmother" by Rhonda Garelick, in The New York Times.

I was surprised to see this very positive-looking presentation on the front page:

Is the article positive? We're told in the end that Amalija Knavs could have been exploited to greater political effect, and we don't even know exactly why she wasn't. There was all this great material that could have been deployed to soften Melania Trump. Maybe when Melania dies, the NYT will discover material that could have been used to soften her.

The unexamined premise is that women are supposed to be soft. And that human beings are supposed to be used.

"Although [Graham Chase] Robinson won the case, she may find it hard to work in Hollywood again."

"'Personal assistants often handle sensitive information, making discretion paramount,' says [Stacy Jones, founder of Hollywood Branded, a marketing agency]. 'The media attention from the trial could be seen as contradictory to this need for privacy.' Or, as De Niro’s Goodfellas gangster Jimmy Conway famously put it: 'Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut.'"

I'm reading "How much did Robert De Niro’s trial tell us about the man behind the movie tough-guys? The actor’s ex-assistant was awarded $1.3m for gender discrimination. Details from the trial suggest a blurring of boundaries between his tough-guy movie persona and his real character" (London Times).

She won. I see that. I have no idea what the terms of her job were, but it paid $300,000 a year. And: "A Hollywood assistant’s remit is tricky to define — it’s not a straightforward, 9-5 gig.... In the trial, claims emerged that the actor made crude jokes about his Viagra prescription; suggested Robinson use a male colleague as 'sperm donor'; called her a 'b****' and a 'f***ing spoilt brat'; would ring her while he was urinating; and asked her to 'imagine him on the toilet.'"

"Once the gifting took over — and women realized they could charge tens of thousands of dollars per social media post — the originality essential to fashion blogging’s initial success receded."

"In its place came the veneer of a successful, aspirational lifestyle; the idea was for an influencer to look as cool and carefree as possible so that women could understand exactly what they don’t have (and needed, immediately). What seemed like a fun alternative quickly became homogeneous. 'The kernel of this innate, benevolent desire to disrupt the system became its own form of establishment,' as [Leandra Medine AKA Man Repeller] put it. 'And so no longer was the desire to become part of the disruption, so much as part of the new establishment.' And consumers seem increasingly skeptical of the idea that they should buy a handbag or visit a place just because an influencer posts about it. So prevalent is the sense that digital marketing and data have too much control over what we want and desire, that TikTok is experimenting with letting users turn off their algorithm...."

Writes Rachel Tashjian in "Whatever happened to having taste?" (WaPo).

I had a sincere, but odd question, so I decided to ask ChatGPT.

In one second, it began writing what became — 3 seconds later — a lucid 5-part answer.

My question:

Why wouldn't most people decide the best way to live is to be as inconspicuous as possible?

ChatGPT:

There could be several reasons why most people may not decide to live an inconspicuous life. Here are some possible explanations:

"Right now, children online have zero protections in regard to their privacy, in regard to their labor, in regard to the income they’re generating for their family."

"If people are going to use children this way, these children deserve protections, just the way child stars have. Imagine being one of these kids and having every single day of your life exploited on a family vlog, and getting to be 18 and seeing nothing in your bank account. Or every moment of your life being monetized and commercialized, the invasion of privacy goes so deep." 

Said Sarah Adams, a "child-safety advocate," quoted in "There are almost no legal protections for the internet’s child stars/Illinois is considering a law, but a similar effort in Washington state failed, and Congress hasn’t tackled the issue" by Taylor Lorenz (WaPo).

There are so many issues mixed together here.

Whole Foods is watching me.

Yesterday, as I was browsing amongst the fruits and vegetables, a voice came over the loudspeaker saying we should check our shopping carts for the sunglasses somebody had, apparently, lost. I heard it, thought about it, but assumed I knew what was in my shopping cart and continued on my way.

Over by the cheeses, as I was standing about 15 feet from my cart, I thought I heard someone call my name, "Ann... Ann..." I glance over and see no one I know and assume, as I've assumed since I was a first grader, that when the syllable that happens to be my name is heard, it's probably not an effort to get my attention.