Write about whatever you like in the comments. And please support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
18 जनवरी 2025
"I don't like being told what to do. I don't like being told what I can think or what I can say."
"The courts may think there's an exemption to the First Amendment. I don't. I'm joining TikTok today as a form of civil disobedience."
"Many Americans who otherwise dislike President-elect Donald J. Trump share his bleak assessment of the country’s problems and support some of his most contentious prescriptions to fix them..."
"... according to a new poll from The New York Times and Ipsos. A little more than half of the country expresses some desire to see Mr. Trump follow through with his harshest threat to deal with illegal immigration: deporting everyone living in the United States without authorization. The poll, which surveyed 2,128 adults from Jan. 2 to 10, found that 55 percent of Americans either strongly or somewhat support such mass deportations.... 46 percent say that trade with foreign nations should be subject to increased tariffs.
And a large majority is sympathetic to efforts to strictly limit how doctors can treat children struggling with their gender identity.... Seventy-one percent said that no one under 18 should be prescribed puberty-blocking drugs or hormones.... For a political figure so divisive — Americans view him more negatively than any other president about to take office in the last 70 years — the level of support for his ideas is striking...."
Here's how I would venture to explain that discrepancy: People like to think of themselves as nice — kind and empathetic — but they also know — or believe — that some hard actions need to be taken. There's that tough man over there. Ooh, I don't like him.
"In a political environment like this, you throw at the wall whatever you can."
"This is a political rather than a legal struggle.... It would succeed only in a different environment than we have.... The real question is what political message is being sent."
Said lawprof Laurence Tribe, quoted in "Can He Do That? Here’s What Biden’s Move on the Equal Rights Amendment Means. Presidents have no direct role in approving constitutional amendments. So what could President Biden’s pronouncement recognizing a new one actually do?" (NYT).
Said lawprof Laurence Tribe, quoted in "Can He Do That? Here’s What Biden’s Move on the Equal Rights Amendment Means. Presidents have no direct role in approving constitutional amendments. So what could President Biden’s pronouncement recognizing a new one actually do?" (NYT).
From the article: "Proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have long made it clear that their strategy is primarily a political, not a legal one. Their goal is to dare Republicans to challenge the legitimacy of sex equality, and of moving to nullify something as simple as equal rights for women."
I don't think Biden even purported to "do" anything. He merely stated his legal opinion. Given the well-known deterioration of his mental capacity, who cares what he thinks?
Anyway, as you endeavor to maintain your own mental sharpness, take note of what's happening in the twilight between law and politics.
AND: Tribe's line "you throw at the wall whatever you can" seems to relate to the old expression "throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." How did that get started? Grok tells me about a 1946 cookbook callled "You Can Cook If You Can Read." It says you can test whether spaghetti is done by throwing it against the wall. I don't know if that's the origin of the expression. I always think of Walter Matthau throwing the spaghetti linguini against the wall in "The Odd Couple":
PLUS: I don't know if this is less or more amusing, but a colleague just sent me a link to "The ERA Is Now Law!" by Professor Tribe in — of all places — The Falls Church News-Press. It's also at that new website The Contrarian, with a different title: "The Equal Rights Amendment at Long Last/Thanks to President Biden, the Constitution will finally guarantee equality for all."
My colleague thinks Tribe is contradicting himself: first, Tribe said it was law, and then Tribe said it was politics. My response is that saying it's law is doing politics. You decide: Is it spaghetti, linguini, or garbage?
"Trump is returning as a colossus."
Writes Maureen Dowd, in "Trump Brings a Chill to Washington" (NYT).
He has brought Washington — Democrats and Republicans — to heel, teamed up with Elon Musk and slapped a gold “Trump” sign on Silicon Valley. The lords of the cloud helped fund the coronation, and they are making a pilgrimage here to bow to their new overlord. (This includes the C.E.O. of TikTok, who is surely hoping that his company’s sponsoring of an inauguration party and his online flattery about Trump’s 60 billion TikTok views will lead the new president to save the social media platform.) But not everyone is looking forward to what’s in store. It will be hard to forget Trump’s day of infamy, Jan. 6, as he gets sworn in at the Capitol, which was smeared with blood and feces by rioters recast by Trump and his acolytes as “hostages,” “patriots,” “tourists” and “grandmothers.”...
As for Biden:
[H]e will be merely a footnote in the vertiginous saga of how Trump won the White House again.... [T]he chip on Biden’s shoulder devoured his judgment about what was good for him, for his party and for the country. His narcissism trumped his patriotism.... Many noticed that Biden was in a fog, or “dans les vapes,” as an aide to President Emmanuel Macron of France called it....
"The history of the world according to rats."
From the video: "Today, rats are often regarded as the most successful invasive species in the world."
Meade: "I'd say humans...."
"My guess is that regardless of what happens in Tom’s criminal case, SCOTUSblog will endure."
"Tom scaled down his involvement with the site years ago—if the indictment is to be believed, he had a lot of other things on his plate—and today SCOTUSblog is really run by Amy Howe, its main courtroom reporter, and Ellena Erskine, its editor. I see no reason why Amy, Ellena, and SCOTUSblog’s nine regular contributors can’t continue their excellent and invaluable work. I don’t know—and can’t imagine—what’s going on in Tom and Amy’s marriage right now... If Tom and Amy go their separate ways (or even if they don’t), they should squarely place all ownership and control of SCOTUSblog in Amy’s hands.... And as a loyal reader of SCOTUSblog pretty much since its inception, I hereby volunteer to do anything in my power to keep it up and running...."
Writes David Lat, in "SCOTUSblog Founder Tom Goldstein Hit With 22-Count Federal Indictment/A lengthy indictment accuses the once high-flying Supreme Court lawyer of massive tax evasion—tied to multimillion-dollar poker losses and multiple affairs" (Substack).
Writes David Lat, in "SCOTUSblog Founder Tom Goldstein Hit With 22-Count Federal Indictment/A lengthy indictment accuses the once high-flying Supreme Court lawyer of massive tax evasion—tied to multimillion-dollar poker losses and multiple affairs" (Substack).
Lat thinks Goldstein's future is not all used up: "He’s only 54, and he still has the intelligence, hard work, and hustle that allowed him to launch a leading Supreme Court website and become one of the nation’s top SCOTUS advocates, even though he never clerked for the Court or graduated from an elite law school. And if the allegations are true, Tom has an unimaginable amount of energy: he was somehow able to argue before the Supreme Court, run a law firm, win and lose tens of millions in high-stakes poker, juggle a dozen women, oversee SCOTUSblog, and raise two kids... He also helped develop a pitch for a television show based on his life and career, which got picked up for development by NBC in 2009. The program, tentatively called Tommy Supreme, never made it to the screen...."
But now the story is far more exciting — especially if he's guilty. Lat sketches out possible futures for Goldstein — including "a pardon from Trump." And, interestingly, Goldstein published "End the Criminal Cases Against Trump" in the NYT (last November, just after the election). But if the idea is to produce a great redemption story — worthy of that TV show — it can't end with a presidential pardon.
17 जनवरी 2025
Sunrise — 7:04, 7:17, 7:20, 7:24.
What's that thing in the ice? See "Man rescued after ATV breaks through ice on Lake Mendota." The man was rescued yesterday, but the ATV was still out there this morning, partly submerged in the ice.Anyway, write about whatever you like in the comments. And please support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
The death of “Democracy Dies in Darkness."
I'm reading "The Washington Post’s New Mission: Reach ‘All of America’ /This week, The Post began trying out a new mission statement: 'Riveting Storytelling for All of America'" (NYT):
After Donald J. Trump entered the White House in 2017, The Washington Post adopted a slogan that underscored the newspaper’s traditional role as a government watchdog: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” This week, as Mr. Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, the newspaper debuted a mission statement that evokes a more expansive view of The Post’s journalism, without death or darkness: “Riveting Storytelling for All of America.”
The new slogan is terrible. The old slogan was also terrible, but at least it was ridiculous. "Riveting Storytelling for All of America" is just really dumb — a dumb slogan expressing the opinion that America is dumb, but what are you going to do?
It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul's State of the State Address: pic.twitter.com/nFsb7Fowu0
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 17, 2025
"Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.’s obituary will be stalked by the counterfactual: What if he hadn’t made the selfish decision to run for reelection?"
"What if he had passed the torch a year or even six months earlier?... The way that events unfolded—his catastrophic debate performance, the stark clarity with which the nation came to understand his geriatric state–-beggars belief. Why didn’t Democrats stage an intervention earlier? Why didn’t his aides stop him from running?"
Writes Franklin Foer in The Atlantic, in "How Biden Destroyed His Legacy/The president’s accomplishments are considerable, but on his signature issue of preserving democracy, he failed spectacularly."
But Foer says: "A cabal intent on preserving its own power would never have blundered in such tragically self-defeating fashion." And: "Democrats ignored a cascade of warning signs...." Is Foer writing to give them cover?
ADDED: I keep rereading this sentence: "A cabal intent on preserving its own power would never have blundered in such tragically self-defeating fashion." It gets funnier every time.
Writes Franklin Foer in The Atlantic, in "How Biden Destroyed His Legacy/The president’s accomplishments are considerable, but on his signature issue of preserving democracy, he failed spectacularly."
Let me answer those questions (as I'm sure you can answer them): Democrats wanted 4 more years of a mentally deficient presidential figurehead for their power. They just desperately changed their plan when we the people got too good of a sudden, scary glimpse at what they'd been up to.
But Foer says: "A cabal intent on preserving its own power would never have blundered in such tragically self-defeating fashion." And: "Democrats ignored a cascade of warning signs...." Is Foer writing to give them cover?
What do you think? Why didn’t Democrats stage an intervention earlier?
"I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution."
From "Statement from President Joe Biden on the Equal Rights Amendment."
What does that mean? Did he do anything or is he just sharing his thoughts?
From the NYT: "Trump Transition Live Updates: Equal Rights Amendment Has Passed, Biden Says, but He Does Not Force Certification": "President Biden... said he would not press a legal fight by ordering the government to finalize the process by officially publishing it."
The conspicuous doing of nothing.
To what extent does Trump's new official portrait look like his mugshot?
Surely, the resemblance is intentional... but so are the differences:
The similarities include the framing of the picture. Notice how the side of the collar and lapel line up under the ear (the famous ear!) and how much of the top of the head is showing, with the chin down. There's a lack of symmetry in the eyes, and a distinctive arced wrinkle over his left eye.
But the mugshot face has garish color and harsh light and shade and a deep frown line on the left side of the mouth. The official portrait lighting puts the shadow where it is flattering and where it reveals the individuality and humanity of the face. By comparison, mugshot Trump seems cartoonish. It's almost as if the light were adjusted to create the look of a Hitler mustache.
In both pictures Trump's right eye seems more active. It's more narrowly pinched than his left eye. It's the eye that's looking right into you. The portrait eye is gentler, wiser, and it influences my interpretation of the mugshot eye. Mugshot Trump is angry. And, oh!, those mugshot eyebrows. They overhang the eyes ominously. He's saying he will fight, fight, fight. Portrait Trump is more complex.
What do you see in him? Whatever it is, it includes his intent to make you think about the mugshot and all that it represents. His adversaries threw everything they could at him, and he fought back and triumphed. But he's not smiling. He's not the Trump in the 2017 portrait:
But who is he? Who is he, now that he's Trump 47?
"Our position on this has been clear: TikTok should continue to operate under American ownership."
"Given the timing of when it goes into effect over a holiday weekend a day before inauguration, it will be up to the next administration to implement."
Said "a White House official," quoted in "Biden administration will leave it to Trump to implement TikTok ban/The ban goes into effect on Sunday unless the Supreme Court intervenes" (ABC News).
What's not clear, of course, is the position if there is no "American ownership." It is clear that at long last the Biden administration will be going. It did seem as though Biden might want to horn in on the role of TikTok savior, but no. It will leave this one to Trump (or the Supreme Court).
Speaking of the last moments, Bob Dylan joined TikTok a couple days ago, just in time to make fun of needing to go:
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)
संदेश
