"In the most eye-popping moment of the exchange, Mr. Watters asked if Dr. El-Sayed believed it was OK 'for a parent to slash his kid’s ding-a-ling off'..."

"... referring to transition surgeries for minors. Dr. El-Sayed responded by asking if Mr. Watters was circumcised. 'Uh, yeah, but that’s a personal question, doctor,' Mr. Watters responded, laughing, before contending that 'circumcision’s different than castration.' Dr. El-Sayed said that he believed the government should not tell Americans what health care procedures they could undergo, but he did not directly say whether he approved of transition surgeries. The interview showed the strategy Dr. El-Sayed is adopting as Mr. Rogers seeks to paint him as a radical leftist who is out of touch with Michigan voters. The Democratic nominee’s approach is to cast 'culture-war' issues as a distraction from the everyday problems Americans face, like rising costs and worries about health care...."

From "El-Sayed Joins Fox News for Some Light Verbal Combat and a Pitch to Republicans/In a smiling yet tense interview, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, argued that his Republican critics were using culture-war issues to distract from Americans’ economic concerns" (NYT gift link).

"Mr. Rogers" = Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today released a report Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of “Gender Medicine'..."

"... a commissioned report examining insurance coding practices, perverse financial incentives, and the provision of sex-rejecting procedures for minors. Drawing on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Guidance, Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, peer-reviewed scientific literature, hospital records, whistleblower testimony, nationwide insurance claims analyses, and interviews with patients and parents, the report presents HHS’ findings and recommendations about the industry pushing and profiting off so-called “gender medicine.” A shortform documentary illustrating the report’s findings and highlighting the stories of victims of predatory gender medical practices was also released in conjunction with the report...."

From the HHS press release.

Vance is taking the lead in the announcement:

For years now, some hospitals and healthcare providers have been subjecting children to horrific, experimental treatments in service of radical gender ideologies. Today, thanks to the Wolves in White Coats report released by @HHSGov, we know why: profit. It turns out that… pic.twitter.com/B7K7iumpYC

— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 13, 2026

Here's the video (the "shortform documentary"):

I hadn't used my "deeply" tag since last May.

It's a deeply bloggy tag, so it makes me want to do a post collecting recent iterations of "deeply." The first time I used it — in "Deeply... it's such a poser word" — I had a 12-point list. That was back in 2014. Let's see what "deeply" has been doing lately.

1. "The Once-Shameless President Is Deeply Embarrassed/As Donald Trump faces one humiliation after another, he is attacking those he blames" by Jonathan Lemire in The Atlantic, published today. Gift link. "But how Trump will respond next to this ongoing embarrassment remains unknown. He’s made the war deeply personal. Will he now bail on the stalled war entirely, leaving Iran more empowered in the region? Will he follow through on his threats to dramatically escalate the conflict, perhaps even to strike civilian infrastructure and energy sites? Or will he channel his rage against Americans who point out his mistakes?"

2. "UN rips ‘deeply troubling’ Iran for executing at least 56 people since start of war: ‘Has no place in our world'" — published today in The New York Post. "Several people were executed in the last two weeks alone, including a 19-year-old charged with 'enmity against god' for allegedly partaking in January’s protests. Two others arrested during the protests were also executed. And in July, two people were executed out of a group of 12 convicted of 'corruption on Earth' and 'enmity against God' over connections to four police killed in January."

3. "Ken Jennings Says He Cares 'More Deeply' About Trans Rights Than Any Other Issue" (Them, August 3, 2026). "Ken Jennings... recently got into a relatively minor back-and-forth on Bluesky with people who claimed his subscriptions to the New York Times were supporting an anti-transgender media organization.... Would I subscribe to the New York Times? No. Would I unfriend someone who did? Not necessarily.... Do I do the crossword puzzle? Yes, because nothing else quiets the anxiety I feel about living in our current reality quite like trying to find a five-letter word for boredom. Ah, 'ennui,' my old friend."

4. "The Woody Guthrie story you’ve probably never heard is deeply Jewish/A documentary recasts the folk singer’s legacy through the influence of his mother-in-law, Yiddish poet Aliza Greenblatt" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 3, 2026). "The film ['Dust Bowls and Jewish Souls: Another Side of Woody Guthrie'] makes the case that Guthrie’s extended Jewish family was not incidental but integral in his artistic and personal evolution. It is a story that stretches from Oklahoma to Coney Island to the Yiddish literary world, and from the folk revival’s Jewish impresarios to one remarkable immigrant woman whose influence has largely gone unrecognized."

5. "Neil Shubin on Trusted Science in a ‘Deeply Partisan Age’/An eminent fossil hunter takes the reins at the National Academy of Sciences in a turbulent moment for American researchers" (NYT, June 2026). "As an institution, we are — by charter and design and history — nonpartisan. But we are in a deeply partisan age. Just by doing our work, we will be viewed in a partisan light no matter what. So our job is to double down on the science. We need to be a trusted source of data."

6. "'I Deeply Believe Dogs Have Superpowers and Secrets’/Prompted by a fierce attachment to his own pet, Paul Yoon wrote a harrowing yet hopeful novel, set during wartime, told from a canine perspective" (NYT, August 2, 2026). "Like his finest literary forebears who have written from a dog’s perspective — Virginia Woolf ('Flush'), John Berger ('King: A Street Story'), Jack London ('Call of the Wild') — Yoon pulls it off without being treacly or condescending.... It helps that Etna can understand everything that’s said by people around him. This was partly a practical choice, as Yoon explains: 'I wanted to create a bridge for the reader to experience this world and this journey.' But, he added, 'I deeply believe dogs have superpowers and secrets.'"

7. "The Deeply Human, Complexly Queer Animated Animals of 'Bouchra'" (autostraddle, August 3, 2026). "In Meriem Bennani and Orian Barki’s bold film Bouchra, an NYC‑based lesbian filmmaker... tries to process her relationship with her Moroccan mother through a semi‑autobiographical meta‑fictional drama stemming from a coming‑out letter she sent nine years prior.... It’s told via anthropomorphic animals in a hyperrealized backdrop.... [E]ntirely animated in Blender, Bouchra’s experimental animal‑filled approach takes some getting used to."

"We want to prevent all the bizarreness and keep our state normal."

Said Bruce Skaug, an Idaho state representative, "who is sponsoring legislation to bar cities and counties from adopting local nondiscrimination policies that extend protection to sexual orientation or gender identity."

Quoted in "How a 911 Call Led to the Nation’s Strictest Trans Bathroom Law/People in Sandpoint, Idaho, don’t know how to characterize a woman’s brush with a transgender woman in a Y.M.C.A. locker room, but the emergency call that followed is still reverberating" (NYT)(gift link).

"Many of these candidates claim to espouse progressive beliefs that are similar to Graham. The thing is, it was never about the bullet points..."

"... but rather the way he was willing to speak to any issue directly and honestly that made voters love and trust him."

Said Spencer Toth, who was Graham Platner’s organizing director, quoted in "Without Platner, Maine Democrats Scramble to Keep Grassroots Energy Alive/Graham Platner’s campaign for Senate imploded last week. The activists who backed him are seeking a candidate to carry his populist message in the race against Republican Susan Collins" (NYT).

***

"Have you seen this clip?" I was asked yesterday, by a family member who texted me a clip that you might be about to link to in the comments.

My answer: "Yeah. I didn’t blog about it because I thought people would just be mean to that person who obviously didn’t belong there...."

The NYT doesn't discuss this person, Ashley Webb, but I can see that she was included in that special Democratic U.S. Senate debate. Originally, the debate was going to be limited to 4 candidates who had won at least 20% of the vote in the Democratic primaries for governor or U.S. House. When people complained about that they opened it to everyone who had filed a formal "intent to run." That was one part of the massive screwup that is ruining the Democrats’ chance to unseat Susan Collins. Laughing at Webb is low and beside the point. 

"Any sport where the man is wearing panties is not a sport."

Said Riley Gaines's father, when college recruiters were interested in Riley both for both swimming and for softball.

Quoted in "Riley Gaines: If JK Rowling agrees with me, I’m doing the right thing/America’s most famous opponent of transgender athletes in women’s sports is celebrating a Supreme Court win. She is ‘vindicated’ — and emboldened by her British husband" (London Times).

There's also this quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "Maybe if you channeled all this anger into swimming faster you wouldn’t have come in fifth."

That's from last October, when JK Rowling tweeted, "@Riley_Gaines doesn’t defend women’s rights for attention or money, any more than I do. We fight because it’s the only thing to do if you’re not a coward, a pick me or a living doormat."

The London Times is very interested in the British husband, Louis Barker, who, we're told, "is on his way to becoming a jeans-wearing, truck-driving, job-creating American man, with a beard and a mullet and a construction company. Gaines says she has recently caught him saying 'y’all' and 'ain’t.'"

Gaines says:

"Democrats stopped talking about trans politics long before the court’s ruling this week."

"In June, which is L.G.B.T.Q. Pride month, no Democratic candidate mentioned the word 'transgender' in their TV ads, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm. Their silence may be an attempt to deprive Republicans of campaign-trail ammunition.... A New York Times/Ipsos poll conducted in January 2025 showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans opposed allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports.... May Mailman, director of the conservative legal organization Independent Women’s Law Center, said the ruling was less animating than it might have been a few years ago, because transgender advocacy feels 'less in your face' now, particularly in red states. Ms. Mailman recalled walking into retail stores across the country back when gender was one of the party’s most galvanizing topics and seeing mannequins of transgender people. That sort of display has become less prevalent, she said, as the opinion of most Americans has become clearer. By winning in the court of public opinion, Republicans in some ways lost ground on a potent political issue, she said.... 'It’s kind of like D.E.I.,' Ms. Mailman said.... 'Is D.E.I. gone, or is it hibernating?'"

From "Ruling on Trans Athletes Gave the G.O.P. a Win. Most Democrats Looked the Other Way. While Republicans celebrated the ruling, many Democrats stayed quiet on an issue that had proved divisive in the last election" (NYT).

"A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination 'on the basis of sex' just as much as a cis-gender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth."

"Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX. In short, the majority is wrong to suggest that the term 'sex' in Title IX ' cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.' Title IX makes room for individuals to live in the gender they choose; it cares not just about sex assigned at birth but also about individuals’ ability to match (or not) their gender presentation to their gender identity."

Writes Justice Jackson, in West Virginia v. B.P.J.

But what is "gender identity" if it stands apart from gender stereotypes? What is being identified with?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh — who has long coached girls' basketball teams — channels the emotions of female athletes.

From his opinion for the majority in West Virginia v. B.P.J.,  allowing states to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex:

Some might ask: What is the harm in allowing an additional athlete to compete in women’s or girls’ sports? That sentiment, though understandable, misunderstands the nature and reality of sports. 

Sports are highly competitive and generally zero sum. At almost every turn, someone wins and someone loses. Every athlete who makes a team takes a roster spot from another athlete. Every player who earns playing time reduces the playing time of a teammate. Every player who makes the starting lineup sidelines another who remains on the bench. Every competitor who wins a race or competition deprives another athlete of that victory, or medal, or prize. Every team that wins because of an added player means that another team has lost because of that added player. Every player who makes all-conference beats out another player who does not. Every student who earns an athletic scholarship takes that opportunity away from another student. And so on. 

Women and girls who play sports care deeply about all of those things. They obsess about them.

The Supreme Court is about to hand down its last decisions of the term.

Here's the live blog at SCOTUSblog.

And here's where to get the text of the opinions immediately, starting in a few minutes, at the Supreme Court's website.

UPDATE: West Virginia v. B.P.J.: "Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX." Kavanaugh has the opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett. Thomas and Gorsuch have concurring opinions. There's an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, by Sotomayor that is joined by Kagan and Jackson, and then Jackson has an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. To what extent is this unanimous? 

From the Kavanaugh opinion: "In short, States are not required to conduct an individual-by-individual comparison of the physical and athletic capabilities of all biological males in order to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny permits a sex-based classification that, as here, is 'not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances.”

UPDATE 2: "FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment." The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee. Another Kavanaugh opinion. It's joined by the 5 you'd expect to join, and the 3 dissenters are then, as you'd know, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. 

UPDATE 3: Birthright citizenship survives. Here's the opinion, Trump v. Barbara. Roberts writes the majority opinion and is joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh writes an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all write their own dissenting opinions, with Gorsuch also joining the Thomas opinion. 

From the Roberts opinion: "If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design. Words appearing frequently in the Executive Order—'mother,' 'father,' 'lawful,' 'temporary'—are absent from the Clause. For a simple reason: they did not matter. And while the Clause does ensure state citizenship attaches for U. S. citizens in 'the State wherein they reside,” Amdt. 14, §1, the explicit invocation of residence for state citizenship only highlights its absence from the criteria for U. S. citizenship. See Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 74 (1873) (a person can 'be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State'). When the principal dissent does grapple with the operative legal text—'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States—it has little to say...."

Also from Roberts: "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.”' Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 600 (Sen. Trumbull). We keep that promise today."

UPDATE 4: From SCOTUSblog: NPR is announcing that Alito is retiring -- but still has not been confirmed... "Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Supreme Court's opinion reversing Roe v. Wade, is retiring, the court announced Tuesday."

"Born with male sex characteristics and raised as boys, the current group of bissus are feminine in appearance."

"Their sacred rituals embody both genders: the daggers represented masculinity; the colorful silks femininity. 'Within a bissu, both male and female exist, and that is perfection,' said Kahar Eka, 52, a senior bissu, who wore a distinctly male attire of a peci hat and trousers, a day after donning an elaborate headdress embedded with flowers...."

I'm reading "The Priests Revered in the Land of Five Genders/The bissus of South Sulawesi are considered a link between the earthly and celestial because they are thought to embody both male and female traits" (NYT).

Eka, who commonly goes by just one name, remembers feeling effeminate even as a young boy; but that sentiment was rejected by Eka’s father, a conservative Muslim. Growing up in Sulawesi, Eka often looked at the bissus and wondered why they were respected, but the calabai — or men who exhibited feminine traits — were bullied. The calling to be a bissu, Eka said, came in a fever dream.... 

"Many in the entertainment industry are creatives, they’re freethinkers, they’re out-of-the-box thinkers..."

"... and so, the idea that someone isn’t conventional is kind of part and parcel of how they move through the world."

Said Dr. Erica Anderson, "a clinical psychologist who specializes in helping children with gender identity issues and who is transgender herself," quoted in "Why do so many Hollywood celebs have trans or non-binary kids?" (NY Post).

These entertainment people are "freethinkers," according to Anderson, who also says, contradictorily, that "the prevailing politics are extremely progressive," so "they don’t feel safe to question an asserted identity by one of their children."

So what is it? Do they feel compelled to go along with whatever the child says — politically compelled — or are they — because of their inherent creativity — celebrating and encouraging unusual expression?

I'm seeing a mysterious merger of freedom and compulsion.

IN THE COMMENTS: Bob Boyd: "I think she means outside-the-box thinkers. Out-of-the-box usually means you don't have to do anything yourself, no assembly required." 

That's closely observed and correct. This is the case of a dying metaphor. What is this box we're talking about when we say "outside of the box"? Grok tells me the expression originated with the 9 dots puzzle:

You're an outside-the-box thinker if you realize you can connect the 9 dots with 4 lines if you go beyond what is only an imaginary box. Apply that metaphor to thinking about how to parent a child who doesn't fit the gender stereotypes associated with its physical form. That's what an outside-the-box thinkers would do. Now, compare the out-of-the-box thinker. This would be someone who has pre-determined ideas built in and really doesn't think at all.

"Texas Children’s Hospital will create the nation’s first 'detransition clinic,' fire five physicians and pay the state $10 million..."

"... under an unusual settlement announced Friday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R). The clinic would focus on providing [free] medical care to patients who had undergone gender-affirming healthcare and work toward reversing its effects, Paxton said.... The move follows an investigation that began in 2023 after Texas passed a law banning health providers from facilitating gender-affirming medical care for minors.... In a statement, representatives from the hospital system insisted they had been compliant with all laws but were settling to 'protect our resources from endless and costly litigation.'"

The Hill reports.

I'm also reading the Axios report of this story. There's this quote from Paxton:

"Today is a monumental day in the fight to stop the radical transgender movement. This historic settlement reflects an institutional and fundamental cultural shift away from radical 'gender' ideology."

And what Axios calls a "Reality check" (but I think Paxton would call radical ideology):

Transition-related care for kids is considered safe, appropriate and medically necessary for children by major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association. 

Surgeries for transgender children are rare. Transgender teens who get gender-affirming care report high levels of satisfaction. 

Detransitioning, or stopping or reversing gender transition, is relatively uncommon. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said evidence of later regret is limited.

"When we were fighting for gay rights — a fight I think we have essentially won — we knew that some issues were more popular than others."

"So we tended to start by trying to win the ones that were most popular. Gays in the military. Employment. We didn’t go after same-sex marriage, we didn’t make marriage a litmus test, until the very end. I analogize that to male-to-female transgender sports. That is the most controversial part of the agenda — the equivalent of gay marriage — so put it at the end. If you go at it that way, you build support for it. But if you insist on the most controversial parts all at once, you make it harder."

Said Barney Frank, quoted in "Barney Frank, in Hospice, Has Advice for the Democrats/Mr. Frank speaks about the missteps of the Democratic Party and his hope for its future. 'Frankly, if I weren’t dying, people wouldn’t be paying as much attention'" (NYT).

"[T]he administration is raising the question of whether allowing transgender women to enroll at a women’s college — and providing access to 'women-only' spaces such as bathrooms, dormitories and locker rooms — violates civil rights protections for women...."

"Smith [College], one of the nation’s largest women’s schools with about 2,500 students, has been admitting transgender students since 2015, along with several other top women’s colleges. The issue became a lightning rod at women’s colleges after a transgender applicant was denied acceptance to Smith in 2013 because her gender identity did not match her financial aid forms. Since then, most women’s colleges updated their admissions policies to welcome transgender applicants. One notable exception has been Sweet Briar College in central Virginia, which does not admit transgender students and helps students in transition transfer to another college...."

From "The Trump administration is investigating Smith College over admitting transgender students" (NYT).

These schools became incapable of freely choosing their own policy after "The issue became a lightning rod" in 2013. If this Trump investigation ends up forcing Smith to exclude transgender women, it will only be forced to do what it originally wanted to do. Obviously, there's a big difference between being forced by social and political pressure and being forced by the government. It's not as though the inclusion of transgender women was required by the government... not that it didn't try. It did. In the Biden years.

"I’d never questioned my gender before I came to America; growing up in India, I’d always identified as a girl."

"Of course, India has a gender hegemony of its own — one I arguably benefitted from in many ways and suffered from in others. I am upper-caste, upper-class, Hindu, and also a Tamil woman who didn’t look like the models in the Fair & Lovely commercials. I was the only Tamilian in most rooms I was in, a fact my North Indian classmates consistently reminded me of. Still, the popular conception of what a woman or a man was felt more fluid. I grew up among Sikh women who didn’t tame their body hair, men who would hold hands platonically with their male friends, and children who cross-dressed for play (almost every boy had a photo of himself dressed up as a girl by his mother for fun).... [And there] is our third-gender community, or hijras, as they are commonly known...."

Writes Supriya Ganesh,  "My Strange Dysphoria/Growing up in India, I never questioned my gender. When I moved to the U.S. at 18, I began to feel disconnected from my body" (New York Magazine).

"If that’s what 'woke' means, it explains why most Americans don’t want to be woke."

"Transgender adults should have the freedom to live as they see fit and that includes the option to pursue elective medical procedures. But why should that choice come at taxpayer expense, especially for noncitizens? If the fiscal well-being of California isn’t incentive enough to crack down on such wasteful mismanagement of tax dollars, then maybe Newsom’s political future is. The outgoing governor seems determined not to learn from the failure of another California Democrat. The most devastating attack ad against Kamala Harris in 2024 featured her saying during her previous presidential campaign that she supported taxpayers picking up the tab for federal prisoners to receive gender transition care...."

Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "Gavin Newsom chooses the wrong side of gender politics again/Sex changes for illegal immigrants might sound like a Republican ad, but it’s California policy."

"Justices Reject Colorado Law Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ for L.G.B.T.Q. Minors."

"Colorado and more than 20 other states restrict therapists from trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of L.G.B.T.Q. clients under the age of 18."

The NYT reports.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum. “But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” 

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, reading a lengthy summary of her opposition from the bench.

Here's the opinion: Chiles v. Salazar. 

The Times headline needs to be sharpened up. The Court didn't "reject" the whole "law." The opinion says that the therapist, Chiles, "stresses that she provides only talk therapy, employing no physical techniques or medications." And the case returns to the lower court to apply the correct standard — strict scrutiny.

Jackson's idea:

"Some conservative appellate judges, many of them Mr. Trump’s appointees, have also used vociferous language... to mock their colleagues’ reasoning..."

"... and sound off about what they call the 'woke' agenda and various culture-war issues. The almost satirical style sparked debate across the legal community earlier this month, when Judge Lawrence VanDyke repeatedly used a profanity to refer to male genitalia in a dissent from a ruling on a transgender discrimination case. He wrote that his use of 'indecorous language,' helped 'bear the truth.' Twenty-seven of his colleagues from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, admonishing him in their opinion for 'vulgar barroom talk' that 'makes us sound like juveniles, not judges.'"

From "Some Judges See Risks in Fiery Opinions Warning of Threats to Democracy/Federal judges are weighing strategies for how to respond to the high stakes, anonymous threats and politicized atmosphere of the Trump era" (NYT)(gift link).

So what's the big "profanity"? It's the expression "swinging dicks," and it appears 3 times — is that "repeatedly"? — in VanDyke's opinion:

This is a case about swinging dicks.

"I'm not I'm not upset and I'm not arguing. You are not letting me make an argument. I'm not red in the face, ma'am. I'm not...."

Things escalate quickly about 10 minutes into this viral video:

At 14:40, the lawyer suddenly, puzzlingly announces "I'm a transgender attorney," and later, mid-arrest, the lawyer, apparently a transman, demands, "Get a female officer now. Get a female officer now. Get a female officer now."

But the trans aspect is the least of what is going on here. It's almost too awful to post, but I'm posting it because it's getting a lot of attention elsewhere — with only part of it clipped out — on TikTok and X and with many comments focusing on the trans angle. The problem with this attorney has more to do with interrupting and abusing the judge and, fatefully, throwing the phone and pen on the floor — or, if this is what you see — attempting to put the phone and pen down and missing.