"They planned to make 'black-bear pastrami'.... 'We were really diligent,' he said. 'We made sure we did everything by the book. We knew we’d be under scrutiny.'"

"As Mr. Chin and his friend carved up the bear in the first-floor kitchen [of the Cornell dorm], some of their peers were studying at nearby tables. Other students walked by and took pictures. 'Most people were really curious,” he said. 'Like, "Hey, we’d love to try some." We were just explaining, like, "Hey, none of this goes to waste,"' Mr. Chin said."

From "Students Skinned a Bear in a Dorm. Cornell Realized It Should Ban That. After two Cornell University students skinned a black bear in a communal kitchen last year to make a meal, the school changed the rules" (NYT gift link).

From the comments: "Not the first time students and bears have resulted in a college needing to change its rules. Lord Byron famously kept a pet bear in his Cambridge dorm after he learned that pet dogs were not allowed."

Really?

I see that Byron wrote this in a letter dated 1807: "I have got a new friend, the finest in the world, a tame bear." He is said to have walked it about on a chain. 

Key evidence includes Byron’s letter of 26 October 1807 to Elizabeth Pigot: “I have got a new friend, the finest in the world, a tame bear. When I brought him here, they asked me what to do with him, and my reply was, ‘he should sit for a fellowship.’” The University of Cambridge and Trinity College itself reference the story as historical fact (or well-attested report), noting he is said to have acquired the bear (possibly at Stourbridge Fair) specifically because of the dog ban. He reportedly walked it on a chain, and the authorities could not easily prohibit it under the existing rules.

Key evidence includes Byron’s letter of 26 October 1807 to Elizabeth Pigot: “I have got a new friend, the finest in the world, a tame bear. When I brought him here, they asked me what to do with him, and my reply was, ‘he should sit for a fellowship.’” The University of Cambridge and Trinity College itself reference the story as historical fact (or well-attested report), noting he is said to have acquired the bear (possibly at Stourbridge Fair) specifically because of the dog ban. He reportedly walked it on a chain, and the authorities could not easily prohibit it under the existing rules.

"Taking into account the space a building would need to leave from the highway, the water and neighboring properties..."

"... as well as a requirement to position the foundation well above flood level, Schwartz and Architecture outlined the maximum allowable building envelope for a home, which was tiny. But, within that envelope, the architects managed to design a 730-square-foot, single-story cottage elevated on tall posts, with a single bedroom and bathroom...."

I'm reading "Even the Architects Said the Build Would Be Nearly Impossible/An architect and his client overcame a steep site and regulatory hurdles to build a 730-square-foot house that hovers over the water in Sonoma County, Calif." (NYT gift link).

"Throughout the journey, Dr. Tang-Oxley frequently communicated with Mr. Schwartz by writing poems instead of providing more direct feedback.... It was a surreal play of disbelief, surprises and pure delights."

"Of all knowledge work, law seems almost perfectly primed for AI because so much of the work involves reading, categorising, and pattern-matching across vast reams of documents."

"It is the type of work AI does well — and tirelessly. It was reported last week that Kirkland & Ellis, the world’s largest law firm, plans to spend $500 million building a bespoke AI system to power its practice. Meanwhile, New York firm Fried Frank has just launched an AI tool designed specifically for its private equity clients, and Slaughter and May has rolled out Harvey across all its practice areas...."

From "Why top lawyers fear that AI is destroying the 'expert’s edge'/When a US law school announced a ban on the tech, some in the industry said students would lack vital skills. The signs are that ‘Big Law’ is leaning in to AI" (London Times).

Meanwhile, at UC Berkeley School of Law there's a new policy banning using A.I. for "outlining, drafting, revising, translating or editing any work submitted for credit." And law firms are complaining because they want to hire new lawyers who are good at using A.I. to do law. How are the schools supposed to teach law now? What's the good of a ban that only restricts the students who are punctilious about rules and terrified of getting caught? Why do those poor souls bear all the burdens? And how effective are law professors going to be about detecting the violations and imposing consequences? Absolutely terrible I would guess.

"Once they are in, there is a considerable amount of pressure to uphold the sorority’s culture. Darnell talks about the 'rules,' mainly around conduct..."

"... though she is sworn to secrecy on the specifics. 'My sorority will text me all the time saying, you need to take this down [from social media], if something might be shining the wrong light,' she said. 'They really do protect my image and I’m very grateful for that. They’re like a PR agency. They keep a close eye.' Though she loves the group enormously, she has taught herself to resist its monolithic culture. 'When I was a freshman [first year], I lost my individuality and everything I talked about was sorority-sorority-sorority,' she said. 'I talked the way I thought people wanted me to and felt the pressure to be perfect and to always say the perfect thing. I didn’t voice my opinion, didn’t want to seem like I was "too much." I’ve got an outgoing, outspoken, goofy personality and I felt like I lost that.' She has since 'found myself,' wanting to be a sports reporter when she graduates next year...."

From "Inside sorority rush, the blood sport making college girls millionaires/Competition for sisterhoods is big business for Kylan Darnell, the Alabama student who chronicles it all like a reality show. Shame her sister wants no part" (London Times).

Here's Darnell's TikTok feed if you want to see what's so popular in this sorority-girl category. 

I went to college in 1969 and everyone I knew believed sororities were about to go extinct. As if hippiedom would reign forever. Anyway... what's interesting here? Lots of things. The intersection of college and TikTok. The endless fascination with makeup and fashion.

But I'll just cherry-pick one thing: "They keep a close eye." Is that the expression? Did she conflate 2 expressions — "close watch" and "keep an eye on" — possibly influenced by the opening lines of "I Walk the Line" — "I keep a close watch on this heart of mine / I keep my eyes wide open all the time"? I think "close eye" is idiomatic. More important, is that what young women want — a close eye?

CORRECTION: I had originally named the wrong Johnny Cash song. I mix up "I Walk the Line" with "Ring of Fire." Honestly, I've disliked both songs for a long time. They both have a line drawn, and he's either inside the line or outside of it. He's fixated on that line. It's all about control and loss of control.

"Because women are doing it and women are the principal actors in this, it’s been stigmatized differently.... just another way to regulate women’s lives."

Said Camila Infanger, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of São Paulo, quoted in "Extremely Lifelike Dolls Cause a Frenzy in Brazil/To some, the dolls, known as reborn dolls, provide comfort, escape or just plain fun. But politicians across Brazil have tried to pass bills banning the dolls from public spaces" (NYT).

What's the "frenzy" supposedly in need of a legislative solution?

"If film and if film and TV productions continue to move out of California due to tax incentives in other states what might the future look for Los Angeles? Is there a risk of it becoming the next Detroit."

That's a question from the audience, and Bill Maher snaps, "Well, there's no need to shit on Detroit in the question! Detroit's a fine city. Detroit!"

That was Friday night, but here's a headline that appeared in the London Times earlier the same day: "Why Hollywood could be the new Detroit/It’s a town built on one industry. So what happens when everyone realises it’s cheaper and easier to film in Hertfordshire?"

So you can see the need to "shit" on Detroit. It's a city with one iconic industry, and it lost it and went into severe decline. It pithily expresses the threat to L.A.

In that Bill Maher/"Overtime" clip, Adam Schiff says that because the movie industry is a "prize economic and cultural driver of the United States" — and he loves movies — the U.S. needs to offer tax incentives.

The other guest, Bret Stephens asks: "But why should it just be for Hollywood? It should be for normal people. It should be for any kind of entrepreneur, not just celebrities... whose pictures and whose faces you know.... It shouldn't just simply be a favorite industry — Oh, we can't lose our our movie stars!"

New York City just legalized jaywalking.

The NY Post reports. 

The decriminalization won’t do much to change New Yorkers’ lives — few people faced ticketing for jaywalking even before the change.

Good then. I don't like to see a law that's not enforced lying around waiting to be enforced on someone. Who? Why?

I'm the sort of person who follows rules because they are rules, and I think it's unfair to people like me to get stuck with limitations that are not restricting the freedom of the people who merely factor in the likelihood of getting caught and punished.

We need to worry about "'pretext offenses' — acts that are criminalized to give cops a pretext to stop, arrest or otherwise manage an unruly or dangerous actor," which may be "a license for cops to harass innocent New Yorkers, particularly black and brown ones."

And: "Jaywalking is, as many have claimed, a 'New York tradition.'"

"In 2023, California saw a net loss of 268,000 residents in New York, 179,000....they're going to... Texas, Florida, Arizona...."

"You cannot be the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live. You are not the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live. In the American political system, to lose people is to lose power. If these trends hold, the 2030 census will shift the Electoral College sharply to the right. The states that Kamala Harris won in 2024 — they'll lose about 11 House seats and Electoral College votes. The states of Trump won would gain them. So in that Electoral College, a Democrat could win every single state Harris won in 2024 and also win Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still lose the presidency."

Says Ezra Klein, in "There Is a Liberal Answer to Elon Musk," the new episode of his NYT podcast, audio and transcript at Podscribe.

The quoted part is from the beginning, where Klein effectively stirs up fears of future disaster for Democrats. The answer to the question asked in the episode title is: "If liberals don't make government work, zealots like Elon Musk are going to come in and burn it down." And: "If liberals do not want Americans to turn to the false promises of strong men, they need to offer them the fruits of effective government in the long run."

Yeah, just do that.

CORRECTION: I misread the headline as a question — Is There a Liberal Answer to Elon Musk? I hallucinated the humility that plainly belongs there!

"FEMA called me and told me they wanted to inspect my house then called me back to say they couldn’t drive around the ‘road closed’ sign. They weren’t allowed."

Said Chelsea Atkins, 38, of Bat Cave, North Carolina, quoted in "FEMA abandons devastated NC town residents because they can’t drive around ‘road closed’ sign: ‘Nobody’s been bringing in supplies except civilians'" (NY Post).

Atkins said FEMA called her to arrange an inspection of her house on the Broad River rendered uninhabitable by the storm, but that they never showed up because the road was closed — the very same road The Post successfully traversed on its way to Bat Cave.

The road is treacherous, but navigable. It’s littered with downed power lines, and whole sections have collapsed. One portion of Highway 9 is entirely washed away, forcing traffic to navigate a huge chasm through someone’s front yard....

Well, then, it wasn't just misplaced rectitude about a "road closed" sign. It's more important to avoid new accidents that require emergency services than to move forward with the inspection of damage that has already occurred. The Post headline is needlessly inflammatory.

"The FBI crime statistics Biden is pushing are fake. They’re fake just like everything else in this administration."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump’s sledgehammer message to Philadelphia is light on facts, heavy on fear/The former president used his first rally in the city of brotherly love to tie violent crime with illegal immigration, despite the evidence against this."

Why does Trump say the FBI is getting it wrong? I found this from last April in the Washington Examiner: "Bad data from the FBI mislead about crime."

"There is no seatbelt for parents to click, no helmet to snap in place, no assurance that trusted experts have investigated and ensured that these platforms are safe for our kids...."

"Parents aren’t the only ones yearning for solutions. Last fall, I gathered with students to talk about mental health and loneliness. As often happens in such gatherings, they raised the issue of social media.... 'I just don’t feel good when I use social media,' [a young woman named Tina] said softly.... Her confession opened the door for her classmates.... There was a sadness in their voices, as if they knew what was happening to them but felt powerless to change it.... Why is it that we have failed to respond to the harms of social media when they are no less urgent or widespread than those posed by unsafe cars, planes or food?... Students like Tina... do not want to be told that change takes time, that the issue is too complicated or that the status quo is too hard to alter.... Now is the time to summon the will to act...."

Writes Vivek H. Murthy, the Surgeon General, in "For Our Kids’ Safety, Social Media Platforms Need a Health Warning" (NYT).

WARNING — THE QUESTION THAT FOLLOWS MAY AFFECT YOUR BRAIN. How dare the government slap its message on the writing and photography of its free citizens?

Let's have a congressional hearing...

"Americans who test positive for the coronavirus no longer need to routinely stay home from work and school for five days..."

"... under new guidance planned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.... 'Public health has to be realistic,' said Michael T. Osterholm, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota. 'In making recommendations to the public today, we have to try to get the most out of what people are willing to do.… You can be absolutely right in the science and yet accomplish nothing because no one will listen to you.' The CDC plans to recommend that people who test positive for the coronavirus use clinical symptoms to determine when to end isolation.... The plan to further loosen isolation guidance when the science around infectiousness has not changed is likely to prompt strong negative reaction from vulnerable groups...."

WaPo reports.

Might also get a strong negative reaction from people who've thought for a long time that the restrictions were not realistic. 

"The Senate's move to relax its unofficial dress code has led to a surprising development: an official dress code."

NPR reports.

It's not the way it always goes, but it shows the risk of seeking a new rule. You may end up with a reinforcement of the old rule. More precisely, it shows the risk of ending the enforcement of an informal practice. It led to the formalization of the old practice into an official rule.

In this case, the change that backfired was all about accommodating one person, John Fetterman, a man with mental problems — he was recently hospitalized for depression. It is, it seems, especially important to him to wear hoodies and gym shorts, and what is the big deal? Let the unfortunate man have what he seems somehow to need. 

But he's in one party, and there's the other party, and it was a ripe opportunity to drag out the age-old argument: What if everybody did that? And we easily picture the Senate full of unlovable oldsters dressed as if they're about to attend a backyard barbecue. Can't have that. And so, John Fetterman must be forced into a suit and tie, at whatever cost to his fragile mind.

They even resorted to teasing him, calling the new rule "The SHORTS Act" (for "SHow Our Respect To the Senate"). That resolution was introduced by Mitt Romney (along with Joe Manchin). Mitt Romney, teasing a man with mental problems? Fetterman still has the option of standing in the doorway in his hoodie and shorts and participating without entering the room.

Good thing they got that done... as a symbol of all the things they haven't got done. 

"There are literally no rules, which is to say laws, that govern women’s underwear...."

"New York City was... the first jurisdiction to insist on 'full gender neutrality,' meaning an employer can 'require an individual identifying as female to wear a bra or hide her nipples, but only if the same rule applies to a male employee.'... When it comes to federal law... 'it only requires that dress codes have gender parity with regard to burdens such as cost.'...  As to the notion that bras are necessary for women’s health... there is no particular medical reason to wear a bra (and... bras don’t prevent sagging).... To be faced with freed breasts, whether or not nipples are visible, is to be forced to confront deep-seated prejudices about all of this, and that is both upsetting and distracting to a lot of people. Especially at this particular moment in time, when control of women’s bodies and their reproductive purpose has become once again a hot-button political issue.... It is not, of course, your job to make other people comfortable or to help them sort through their own feelings about all of the above...."

Writes Vanessa Friedman in "Are There Any Rules About Going Braless? A reader wonders when it’s OK to abandon the undergarment" (NYT)

The wondering reader is from Madison, Wisconsin, I note. It wasn't me, I should add, though I have the same question. And I believe Friedman did not answer the question asked. 

"[T]he school had no janitorial or medical staff and a bizarre list of rules. For example, students were served only sushi for lunch..."

"... which reportedly cost Ye $10,000 (£7,800) a week. The kids weren’t allowed to use forks and had to sit on the floor to eat because Ye 'banished chairs in place of foam floor cushions.' Another alleged no-no at Donda Academy was stairs: there weren’t any classes on the second floor, because Ye is 'afraid of stairs.' Colours were also prohibited: students had to wear all black; cups and bowls had to be grey. Windows were empty because the musician 'doesn’t like glass.' Perhaps most disturbingly, the school doors were locked from the outside during the school day...."

From "'No chairs, no stairs, no glass in the windows': what did Kanye West’s schoolkids get for $15,000 a year? The rapper denies his private Christian academy was a ‘dystopian institution’. But the bizarre allegations keep coming" (The Guardian).

I'd love to watch this as a documentary, but right now, it's just 2 lawsuits.

I laughed out loud at "Windows were empty because the musician 'doesn’t like glass.'" How does that happen? Not liking glass. I could only think of Mary Sweeny, The Window Smasher.

How could 1970s interior decoration have happened?

I don't know. Pay attention this time.

 

From the article, which is in The Washington Post:

"Plant medicines like psilocybin and ayahuasca... they are beautiful because they give you exactly what you need, even if you don’t know what it is you need."

Said Veronica Duron, chief of staff for Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), quoted in "AOC, Dan Crenshaw and the mellow struggle for psychedelic drug access/What do a democratic socialist, a Republican war veteran and a long-haired lobbyist from Montana have in common? They want the government to relax about certain mild-altering substances" (WaPo).

Duron, a user of plant medicines, added that she didn’t know whether her boss would ever personally partake but knows the senator often “hears from his wealthy friends and supporters who micro-dose every day and have these experiences. And he is like, ‘These healing experiences shouldn’t be just for rich White people.’” Booker has co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) similar to Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment to study the medical benefits of certain psychedelics....

It's a racial justice issue — that's good political packaging for Booker (and others). Don't say it so it might be heard as: Let's get more drugs to black people. It has to be: If some people feel completely free and don't worry at all about criminal law enforcement, then let's make it equal. Or: It's a matter that inherently belongs to the individual, who gets to decide which of the possibly beneficial drugs to take. I wouldn't recommend calling psilocybin and ayahuasca "these healing experiences." Leave it to the (supposed) experts in the FDA to determine which which drugs are effective cures for diseases and disorders. You sound anti-science when you say "these healing experiences." You might as well start recommending religions if you're going to talk like that.

"I'm not doing this. Enough is enough. Leave me alone. Period. I'm not doing this. Fine me if you want. I don't care. Catch the car thieves and check-washers first."

A comment, at the NYT, on the article "New York City Residents Will Soon Have to Compost Their Food Scraps/The City Council passed a bill on Thursday requiring New Yorkers to separate their food waste from regular trash, with mandatory composting coming to all five boroughs by next year."

From the article:

Things that must be done "within one yard of a woman."

I'm reading "'Must be within one yard of a woman': Proud Boys trial reveals group’s strict 'no wanks' rules/The group's official handbook places strict conditions on masturbation, testimony reveals" (Salon).

Here's the text of the rule: "A Proud Boy may not ejaculate alone more often than once every thirty days. That means he must abstain from pornography during that time and if he needs to ejaculate it must be within one yard of a woman with her consent. The woman may not be a prostitute."

"[A]s of Jan. 1, we Californians will be able to jaywalk to a film audition, jaywalk to buy pot, jaywalk to meet an angel investor for a start-up, jaywalk for hot baby yoga classes..."

"... jaywalk for the benefit of paparazzi alerted earlier about where and when the jaywalking will occur, and jaywalk to any of the countless California-centric pastimes that the rest of the country finds so amusing. Or we might jaywalk across the street just to get to the other side.... [A]n enterprising individual can shoplift goods worth up to $950 without worrying about being tagged with a felony. Parking in L.A. is always a pain; if you’re hotfooting it out of a Macy’s or Target with an armful of pilfered goods, your ability to jaywalk worry-free to your getaway car is a cultural advantage right up there with being able to make a right turn on a red light. On a more serious note, the Freedom to Walk Act is a social-justice victory. As the bill’s author, state Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) told CBS Bay Area news, jaywalking laws 'are arbitrarily enforced and tickets are disproportionately given to people of color and in low-income communities.'"

From "California greenlights jaywalking. It’s a step in the right direction" (WaPo).

Yeah, don't have a law you're not willing to enforce equally against everyone. We don't want chaos, but you've got to draw the line where you'd want it enforced against you and the people you personally favor.