"For more than 30 years, the world’s largest iceberg was stuck in the Antarctic. Five times the size of New York City’s land area and more than 1,000 feet deep..."

"... the mammoth piece of ice finally became loose in 2020 and began a slow drift toward the Southern Ocean. Now, A23a, as it’s known, is spinning in place. After leaving Antarctic waters, the iceberg got stuck in a vortex over a seamount, or an underwater mountain. Imagine a piece of ice about 1,500 square miles in area and as deep as the Empire State Building spinning slowly but steadily enough to fully rotate it on its head over the course of about 24 days."

The NYT reports.

Haven't used my "vortex" tag in a long time.

Were you aware of the "Southern Ocean"? "The Southern Ocean, also known as the Antarctic Ocean, comprises the southernmost waters of the world ocean, generally taken to be south of 60° S latitude and encircling Antarctica.... The National Geographic Society recognized the ocean officially in June 2021...." 

How do we speak of the ocean/oceans? "The ocean is the body of salt water that covers approximately 70.8% of Earth. In English, the term ocean also refers to any of the large bodies of water into which the world ocean is conventionally divided...."

"Weird hexagon on Saturn is way bigger than scientists thought."

"As the polar vortex became more and more visible, we noticed it had hexagonal edges, and realized that we were seeing the pre-existing hexagon at much higher altitudes than previously thought."

"You’re well taken care of here. They got resources and... I don’t know there’s just something about the place. They call it the vortex."

"I’ve left. I’ve been to Arcata and Santa Cruz and I’ve tried Florida. I’ve been around America. Ain’t nowhere like Berkeley, man.... I sat out here before like depressed and starving but still too proud to hold my head up and ask somebody for food. I’m just sitting here with my head down. I look up, and there’s this guy handing me like French toast in a box. I was like, ‘Thank you, man.’ I had my headphones in. I put it down, I put my head back down, and when I look back up I see his fist in my face and he had ‘LOVE’ tattooed on his knuckles and he was trying to give me knuckles and I thought that was pretty awesome, man. And just shit like that happens all the time, man. You see a lot of manifestation out here. Manifestation is what I like to call it. When you need something, it just comes to you. As long as you need something important. Something that you actually need, you’ll get it. I don’t know if that’s manifestation or blessings. I guess it’s all the same."

From "How people living on the streets in Berkeley find their food."

To live freely in writing.

That's my longtime motto here on the blog. (Not that I have some other motto that I use somewhere else, though I do, off-blog, frequently deploy my aphorism "Better than nothing is a high standard.")

Writing that last post, marking the 10-year anniversary of this blog, I worked in the old motto. It's the only link in that post [or was, until I added a link to this post], and it goes to a normblog profile of me from November 2004, where the first question is "Why do you blog?" and my answer was what was already my motto: "To live freely in writing." Scrolling down over there, I also see: "What is your favourite proverb? > I'm from the 60s, so: 'Do your own thing.'" My own thing is to live freely in writing.

But I started looking for other occurrences of "to live freely in writing." For a long time — I can't remember when or how long — I kept the motto in the blog banner under my name. That was before that space became the place to stow links to other important stuff, not that anything's more important to me.

Anyway, here's what I found in my search for other occurrences of the motto (which I've boldfaced):

The vortex.

"Astonishing."

Purchase of the day.

From the March 4, 2013 Amazon Associates Earnings Report:

Whirlpool W10295370 FILTER1 Refrigerator Water Filter (Earnings to the Althouse blog = $1.87)

... and 76 other items purchased — at no additional cost to the buyers — through the Althouse Amazon portal.

Thanks to all who use the portal for your shopping needs - reducing cysts, asbestos, the taste and odor of chlorine, particulates and lead, retaining the benefits of fluoride and, all the while, keeping awhirl the imagination and creativity of a blogger called Althouse.

Is government an "impetuous vortex" or a "hideous monster [with] devouring jaws"?

Reading the Obamacare case in class preparation today, I notice those 2 metaphors, both taken from the Federalist Papers, both used in the process of saying that the Commerce Power doesn't support the requirement that everyone buy health insurance. "Impetuous vortex" — from The Federalist No. 48, written by James Madison — is quoted in  Chief Justice Roberts's opinion:

The Government’s theory [of the scope of the commerce power] would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”

The "hideous monster [with] devouring jaws" — written by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 33 — appears in Justice Scalia's opinion:

If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, “the hideous monster whose devouring jaws... spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.” The Federalist No. 33, p. 202 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Many have noted that Scalia (joined by Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) did not join the Roberts opinion on the Commerce Clause, even though they said basically the same thing about it. Their spirit of resistance shows even through their choice of a different Federalist Paper with a different author and a different metaphor for government's voracious maw.

Purchase of the (yester)day.

Panasonic ER-GN30-K Vortex Wet/dry Nose and Facial Hair Trimmer, Black (Amazon Associates earnings to this blog: $1.00). Portal, vortex, orifice – wherever you enter, good grooming is never out-of-season at the Althouse blog.

Drawn into the artistic vortex.

I showed you the vortex in the museum, where the unsuspecting black-booted woman strode by. And Chip Ahoy said "Stupid square post modernistic painting, your dumb little untalented post modernistic kids could make it, that doesn't do anything at all..."



And it was only 2 years ago, that I showed you that transfixed R. Crumb-type woman and Chip said "Now look, you get one warning and only one warning. Do NOT stare at the Buddha too long..."

Under the "Adopt a Vortex" program, Mini Cooper paid to have a cold front named "Cooper."

But now the cold front has caused many cases of hypothermia and frostbite and at least 100 deaths.

Vortex!

"Well, now I'm tempted to link to this, but maybe that would require more intensely intra-Meta talking, and who knows where the echo would end. Chez Althouse, we call that the vortex. Please be careful."

The brochure said you'd move beyond "self-imposed and conditioned borders" and "learn (and apply) the awesome power of 'integrity of action.'"

And was that really puffery? What was delivered was... death!

Shortly after 5 p.m. Thursday, a man and a woman, reportedly in their 50s, lapsed into unconsciousness during a simulated Native American sweat-lodge purification ceremony led by a self-help guru and inspirational speaker at a Sedona retreat. They were pronounced dead at Verde Valley Medical Center, and 19 others were hospitalized for as-yet-undetermined causes....

64 people were taking part in the sweat-lodge ceremony, which lasted about two hours and was being hosted by James Arthur Ray, an author and spiritual self-help entrepreneur....

The victims were attending the ceremony during the final day of a five-day program called "Spiritual Warrior," which Ray has conducted at the resort annually since 2003. Ray's Web site lists the cost for next year's program at $9,695 per person.

This all happened in Sedona, which the linked newspaper article calls "an international mecca for New Age beliefs and purportedly the site of numerous 'vortexes,' or natural energy confluences thought to enhance spirituality and well-being."

It seems to be a money vortex. $9,000+ to be packed into a very hot stuffy room with 63 other people who saw fit to pay $9,000 for such abuse — rendered subjectively beautiful via soppy thoughts about "Native Americans."

In the Pacific Ocean, there is an island of trash the size of Texas.

"The vortex of currents which pushes the debris together is known as the North Pacific Gyre."

"This post does a great job of parodying Althouse’s own obsession with irrelevant minutae."

"... That *is* what it’s doing, isn’t it?"

Ha ha ha. That's the 8:57 comment (from Bitchphd) on this obsessive and humorless post about the Obama-Sarkozy ass-gawk and my description of it.

IN THE COMMENTS: Rick Lee says:

Well... I AM an expert in photography and this guy's analysis is stupid. You can see from the feet position of Obama and the girl that Obama is standing exactly beside the ass in question because they are on steps.

Indeed!

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single blogger in possession of a good vortex, must be in want of a husband."

From the comments on last night's post with Bob & Mickey commenting on Ann & Meade.

Sara said:

When Ann & Meade marry, that will make 9 couples I know or that I've had some online contact with who met online and got married.

Ann, if it helps with all the naysayers, the other 8 are all happy and three have been married more than 10 years now....

Theobromophile said:

Ditto to Sara. People meet online all the time. I know a bunch of eHarmony folks, and my mum met my stepdad on Match.com back in the '90s. At least a comment section of a blog presumes a common interest.

Yes, we need to make a big distinction between the on-line version of what was once the personal ads in the newspaper. I think what is getting attention in my case isn't that we "met on line," because that's not unusual at all. In fact, I don't even think it would get a reaction if 2 commenters got together. (Why not email a commenter you like? You might end up in love in real life.) What is stirring people up is that a blogger is marrying one of her commenters, perhaps especially where the blogger is the woman and the commenter is the man.

Hoosier Daddy said:

I met Mrs. Hoosier in a bar while we were in college. We did a couple of tequila shots together, danced to The Fine Young Cannibals got engaged and married two years later. It's been 18 years of wedded blitz ever since.

AJ Lynch said:

80-90% of married couples met in a bar. Many have trouble admitting it.

Hoosier Daddy said:

Not only do I admit it, I wear it as a badge of honor and distinction. We had a rockin good time, made out in the parking lot and 20 years later we're still together.

All those fairy tales about romantic hookups is bullshit. Two years later she's telling the judge what a cocksucker he is and she ends up with the house, car and is banging the pool boy.

Yeah, how are you supposed to meet somebody? What is the officially approved-of way?

Michael Hasenstab said:

Gosh, you youngsters and your interwebs, meeting online and all.

I'm so old school that I met my wife inline. We were lined up (in person, not via computer queue), waiting to get into the same place early one Saturday morning. We talked (in person, not via some electronic thingie, this was pre-email), exchanged names (using pen and paper, this was pre-PDA) and telephone numbers (to our home phones, this was pre-cellular).

One of us called the other, then the other called one of us a few days later. Then we met once and both explained why we had no, zero, nada, bupkus, zip, nunca intentions of marrying because we both greatly preferred the single life.

We met a second time and part way through that date fell in love and decided to marry as soon as practical. And we did. And decades later remain blissfully married.

When the sparks are ignited, the method or media doesn't matter. A great match is a great match, no matter how it was achieved.

And a few friends and relatives did ask "Does he/she know the guy/girl?" Their questions didn't matter. We already had the answer.

Ha ha. By the way, from my experience, I'd say that the conviction that singlehood is best and I'm never getting married is, oddly enough, breaks through to the shortest path to a decision to marry.

Peter hoh said:

I like the way that "commenter" sounds a bit like "commoner."

It sounds like something out of a Victorian comedy of manners. "She's marrying a commoner? Oh my!"

Paul Zrimsek said:

"She's marrying a commoner? Oh my!"

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single blogger in possession of a good vortex, must be in want of a husband.

Blago has a vortex?

Now, I'm jealous.

Lolsportz.

With a hat tip to our wonderful Bissage.

And as long as we're lol-ing, let me acknowledge the much-emailed "vortex kitteh"…



... which was nicely animated by our wonderful Chip Ahoy:

Searching "Zippy."

You can now do a word search through all the old "Zippy the Pinhead" comic strips! How incredibly cool. What's the first word you search?

[I doubt that] Obama wore an earpiece that was clearly visible on HDTV.

(Enlarge.)

ADDED: Scrolling around and looking in different frames, I don't see it. I think this picture creates an illusion of a clear plastic earpiece, but I can't see it in other frames.

AND: I made the picture smaller, so you won't think I'm trying to make trouble even though I no longer believe there is a visible earpiece. Anyway, remember the suspicions about Bush in '04, the famous jacket bulge? Remember this old story about Romney? There has also been discussion over whether Palin wore an earpiece. And there's been speculation about Obama, based on performances like this:

ADDED: Live-blogging the debate, Jac (a big Obama supporter) said:

10:27 - Obama needs to be coached to stop beginning so many of his answers with dead air while he thinks of what to say: "Uhhh ... ehhh ..."

That would be a good time to listen to an inside-the-ear advisor. Glenn Reynolds links to this post and agrees with my just a reflection analysis. But then he links to this comment over on Volokh:

Actually, both candidates' hesitancy and quick changes of topic, often within the same sentence, are consistent with their being whispered to. I challenge you to sound coherent when someone's talking to you and you have to not repeat what they say but reformulate it into something that sounds good, while they're still talking.

On that theory, look at this: (Thanks to commenter jdeeripper for pointing me to that.) You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see. I would not be surprised to learn some day that all or most politicians have for years had their advisors helping them from deep inside their ear canals. Maybe the best politicians are just those who are most adept at translating the voice in their ear into fluid speech. AND: In the comments and around the web, this post is attracting anti-Althousiana. What I would really love would is a Chip Ahoy animation of Obama's ear as a vortex, like this one. For more information my vortex, read this and click the "vortex" tag.

Obama has "developed a self-discipline so complete... that he has established dominion over not only what he does but also how he feels."

Jodi Kantor writes in a long NYT piece about Obama's superhuman transcendence of emotion for the sake of political triumph:

He does not easily exult, despair or anger: to do so would be an indulgence, a distraction from his goals. Instead, they say, he separates himself from the moment and assesses.....

But with Barack Hussein Obama officially becoming the Democratic presidential nominee on Wednesday night....

Wow, the NYT used the middle name. Can we say Barack Hussein Obama now without raising the presumption that we're out to get him?

There is little about him that feels spontaneous or unpolished, and even after two books, thousands of campaign events and countless hours on television, many Americans say they do not feel they know him. The accusations of elusiveness puzzle those closest to the candidate. Far more than most politicians, they say, he is the same in public as he is in private.

This is the real Obama, then. There is no other. Some will say: Aha, I told you: empty suit. But I'm thinking: The 20th century is over. No more Freud and hippies. No more contempt for the repressed and delving into the subconscious and imprecations to let it all hang out. There is no subconscious. There is no it to hang out. The 21st century man has arrived. Reorient yourself for the future.

Starting in law school, Mr. Obama began pulling together a large cast of mentors, well-connected and civic-minded friends who rose in Chicago and Illinois politics along with him, including a spouse he thought was ideal.

“He loved Michelle,” said Gerald Kellman, Mr. Obama’s community organizing boss, but he was also looking for the kind of partner who could join him in his endeavors. “This is a person who could help him manage the pressures of the life he thought he wanted.”

No, no, don't speculate about the substance of his marriage. That would be too 20th century. What you see is what it is.

If there is one quality that those closest to Mr. Obama marvel at, it is his emotional control. This is partly a matter of temperament...

I told you: he's phlegmatic.

...they say, partly an effort by Mr. Obama to step away from his own feelings so he can make dispassionate judgments. “He doesn’t allow himself the luxury of any distraction,” said Valerie Jarrett, a close adviser. “He is able to use his disciplined mind to not get caught up in the emotional swirl.”

No vortex for him.

It is not that Mr. Obama does not experience emotion, friends say. But he detaches and observes, revealing more in his books than he does in the moment. “He has the qualities of a writer,” Mr. Axelrod said. “I get the sense that he’s participating in these things but also watching them.”...

As a campaigner, Mr. Obama had to learn to sometimes let simple emotion rule. When Mr. Axelrod first devised “Yes We Can” as a slogan during Mr. Obama’s Senate campaign, the candidate resisted: it was a little corny for his taste. “That’s where the high-minded and big-thinking Barack came in,” said Peter Giangreco, a consultant to the Obama campaign. “His initial instincts were off from where regular people’s were.”

Odd that the crowd got so emotional, when he was aloof. What were they looking for in him? And why did they think they saw it?

IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian writes:

It's funny how the New York Times seems to think this article makes Obama look good, when it actually makes him sort of seem like a sociopath.

Or like Mr Spock.

But then, Mr Spock would never become a Democrat. Illogical, Captain.

MORE: I've set up a new post on the Obama's-a-Vulcan theme, so comments on that theme would be better over there.

Also in the comments, Amba writes:

You're so 20th century you can't help analyzing him even while commanding us to get over analyzing him.

Ha ha. Yes. I will never get out of that place.

Me too. I found a Jungian twist that kind of fits (it's down at the end of this post.... What's interesting is that the "negative puer aeternus" has trouble ever making commitments. Obama made commitments to his family and (for a while) to his black and Christian identity, as if he knew he needed to be "grounded" even if it did not come naturally.

Fascinating. Go over there and read the whole thing. Snippet:

John McCain, by contrast [to Obama's puer aeternus], is senex, the archetype of the "old man." A Jungian would say (annoyingly) that they "constellate" each other, that is, whenever one shows up it invokes the other.

Spooky!