Sunrise — 5:48, 6:20, 6:20.

Talk 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.

“A Fish Falls From the Sky and Sparks a Brush Fire in British Columbia.”

“Officials say a flying osprey dropped its catch, which then struck power lines, causing sparks that ignited dry grass.”

NYT. 

"Think of us as the 'Inglourious Basterds' of the House Democrats. We will do anything to win this."

"Trump has fundamentally changed the rules of political engagement in this country. If they attack, you attack back."

Said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-California), quoted in "Blue-state Democrats face hurdles countering Texas GOP’s new election map/Democratic leaders in California, Illinois and New York are exploring retaliatory measures to offset the creation of more safe red seats. Moving as swiftly as their GOP counterparts will be difficult" (WaPo)(free-access link).

I saw the movie "Inglourious Basterds," but I don't remember what the characters did other than that they felt justified in doing it because they were fighting the Nazis, so I sought out help from Grok —  How unscrupulous and awful were the Inglourious Basterds?

From Grok's answer:

Maureen Dowd knows what guys want.

I'm reading Maureen Dowd's new column (NYT):

It was one of the most erotic things I ever heard. A man I know said he was reading all the novels of Jane Austen in one summer. 

At first, I figured he was pretending to like things that women like to seem simpatico, a feminist hustle. But no, this guy really wanted to read “Northanger Abbey.”

How does she know what this guy wants?! Maybe he's good at pretending. Maybe he wants it as a means to an end and it's the end that is really wanted. He wants you to think that he wants what you want him to want. 

"Some people seem so obsessed with the morning/Get up early just to watch the sun rise...."

So begins the song Spotify chooses for me after it comes to the end of the album I'd chosen and as I am emerging from the overgrown forest path and looking back to see the sun has finally emerged above the smoke on the lake. 

That's a little too on the nose, Spotify. If you're really following me that doggedly you ought to act more nonchalant.

The album that was my choice — the soundtrack for my sunrise walk/run — was "New Morning." I'd picked it because as I drove up there was a "rabbit runnin’ down across the road" — as Bob sings in the title song. Yes, Bob, like Chuck Schumer, drops his G's.

I got back home and assembled my coffee-and-peanut-butter breakfast and then got a late start blogging because I became quite involved testing whether Grok would replicate my hypothesis about the progression of songs on the "New Morning" album. Seriously, I'm not going to bother you, the blog reader, with the details of my hypothesis about the alternating 5 themes. I'll just say I was surprised that Grok found "One More Weekend" to be "possibly... sinister." Oh, really?! We — Grok and I — got fixated on the first line "Slippin' and slidin' like a weasel on the run." Grok:

"Ya know, it keeps gettin' worse...."

Did Chuck Schumer always drop his G's like that?

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blatantly lies and says DOGE cuts are being used to pay for the $200M White House ballroom.

In reality, President Trump and private donors are paying for the ballroom.

All Schumer does is lie, lie, and lie.pic.twitter.com/KeQ04qxwOH

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) August 1, 2025

"They're gonna spend 2 effin' hundred million dollars" — yeah, 200 effin' million dollars of donated money.

There are 4 more dropped G's in that clip and it's only 26 seconds long. 

"The Russiagate scandal has long been one of the most convoluted, hard-to-follow news stories of all time...."

"Those of us who covered the story from the start had a difficult time explaining to audiences what it was, as we ourselves didn’t know. Now we do.... Finally, it seems, we can explain.... It wasn’t the start of a corruption story about Trump, but the cover-up of a still-unresolved Hillary Clinton scandal. This is purely a Clinton corruption story.... With the help of the declassified Durham material, we can explain the whole affair in three brushstrokes. One, Hillary Clinton and her team apparently hoped to deflect from her email scandal and other problems via a campaign tying Trump to Putin. Two, American security services learned of these plans. Three — and this is the most important part — instead of outing them, authorities used state resources to massively expand and amplify her scheme.... Hillary Clinton got in a jam, and the FBI, CIA, and the Obama White House got her out of it by setting Trump up. That’s it...."

Writes Matt Taibbi, in "No Doubt Left: Russiagate Was a Cover-Up/The most infuriatingly complex scandal of all time has just been reduced to a page or two, thanks to another declassified release" (Substack).

More from Taibbi at "The New York Times Can't Stop Sucking/How many times can one newspaper screw up a story?" (Substack).

ADDED: This post is really a place-holder. It marks my own nonfollowing of the story. Notice what I am quoting — Taibbi's acknowledgment that the story is too hard for people to follow. And it's not as though he's solving the problem for us. The quoted material is conclusory assertion. For someone who isn't already pro- or anti-Trump, you still have no way to sort out what's true. I also read The New York Times, and here's Taibbi telling me The New York Times is systematically screwing it up. Maybe. How am I supposed to know? 

Sunrise — 5:33.

Talk 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.

Bonus: Water lillies at sunrise:

"Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity."

"Nor is a prison setting conducive to eliciting truthful and complete testimony. Of course, in the alternative, if Ms. Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing — and eager — to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, D.C. She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning."

Said David Oscar Markus, Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney,  quoted in "Ghislaine Maxwell quietly moved from Florida to Texas prison as lawyers seek Trump pardon" (Independent).

And there's this from Trump: "Well, I’m allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody’s approached me with it. Nobody’s asked me about it."

I want to be good at spotting iterations of trends that I don’t already know about. I don’t want to be the out-of-it blogger...

... who criticizes something for being off or weird when it’s actually a thing. I want to get out in front of it, recognize it as a thing, and criticize it from a savvy position, or at least know to shut up about it.

I don't know how good my skill is, because this one might be too dumb and obvious to be tricky....

"To other Gen Zers, the stare may signal a cool detachment, showing that they understand the irony..."

"... especially when selfies are paired with absurd captions or filters. In sum, the Gen Z stare isn’t just a blank look—it’s an important signal. It pushes back against older norms of digital self-presentation, reflects changing attitudes toward visibility and authenticity, and may also be a subtle form of emotional boundary-setting in an age of constant exposure."

From "The Psychology Behind the Gen Z Stare/Have you seen the Gen Z stare? What's really behind it?" (Psychology Today).

There's something called the "aesthetic of resistance."

"There is no precedent for politicians so aggressively raising money for their own entities when they do not have a campaign to use it for."

Writes Theodore Schleifer, in "Trump, Term-Limited, Amasses $200 Million War Chest for Political Ambitions/The money is meant to beat Democrats, but some Republicans worry it could be used to beat Republicans, too" (NYT).

In the first half of 2013, a similar political group supporting a term-limited Barack Obama, Priorities USA, raised just $356,000. As of that June, it held $3.4 million, less than 2 percent of the cash on hand of Mr. Trump’s super PAC.... 

"[T]he White House is currently unable to host major functions honoring world leaders and other countries without having to install a large and unsightly tent approximately 100 yards away..."

"... from the main building entrance. The White House State Ballroom will be a much-needed and exquisite addition of approximately 90,000 total square feet of ornately designed and carefully crafted space, with a seated capacity of 650 people — a significant increase from the 200-person seated capacity in the East Room of the White House.... The White House Ballroom will be substantially separated from the main building of the White House, but at the same time, it’s theme and architectural heritage will be almost identical. The site of the new ballroom will be where the small, heavily changed, and reconstructed East Wing currently sits. The East Wing was constructed in 1902 and has been renovated and changed many times, with a second story added in 1942...."

The White House announces, on its website. The project costs $200 million, and Trump and other donors are paying for it

Am I correct in reading that text to mean that the East Wing will be demolished? I don't see the word demolition, but I see that the structure as it now exists is called "small, heavily changed, and reconstructed." So that seems to mean the structure will be heavily changed and reconstructed one more time, don't you think?

Reading the history of the East Wing as recounted by Wikipedia, I can see why the part of it that's above ground can be regarded as unworthy and subject to complete replacement:

President Thomas Jefferson added colonnaded terraces to the east and west sides of the White House, but no actual wings. Under Jackson in 1834, running water was piped in from a spring and pumped up into the east terrace in metal tubes. These ran through the walls and protruded into the rooms, controlled by spigots. Initially, the water was for washing items, but soon the first bathing rooms were created, in the ground-level east colonnade. Van Buren had shower baths installed here. The East Terrace was removed in 1866. For many years, a greenhouse occupied the east grounds of the White House.

The first small East Wing was built during the Theodore Roosevelt renovations, as an entrance for formal and public visitors. This served mainly as an entrance for guests during large social gatherings, when it was necessary to accommodate many cars and carriages. Its primary feature was the long cloak room with spots for coats and hats of the ladies and gentlemen. 

The East Wing as it exists today is a two-story structure and was added to the White House in 1942 primarily to cover the construction of an underground bunker, now known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC). Around the same time, Theodore Roosevelt's coatroom became the movie theater. Later, offices for correspondence, calligraphers and the social secretary were placed in the East Wing....

Rosalynn Carter, in 1977, was the first first lady to keep her own office in the East Wing....

Shower baths! Coat room! Calligraphy! First ladies! Movie theater! Get that outta here.

I think it's pretty cool that Trump, the builder, wants to leave his mark on the building. He knows how to do it well and he takes immense pride in architectural work and actually cares about beauty.

ADDED: Here's a nice article at The Beautiful Home, "Jefferson's White House."

When asked by L’Enfant, Washington, D.C.’s civic designer, what style he would prefer for the nation’s administrative building, Jefferson responded, “the adoption of some one of the models of antiquity which have had the approbation of thousands of years.” Soon after, a competition was held for design of the President’s House. There were six designs submitted, one of which was anonymous. With care and taste George Washington chose from the six a design by the excellent Jms. Hoban, the White House you know today. Jms. Small’s design was okay, yet that anonymous design … hum … exceeding fine, well proportioned, noble without majesty, domed, much in Thos. Jefferson’s style … because it is Jefferson, this author and other experts now agree. Though he did not win the competition, Jefferson did when President design the White House grounds with gardens, woods, and sweeping carriage path both elegant and eloquent. For many years the White House retained a Jeffersonian tincture. Yet all that is left of those eloquent paths is memory and a sketch....

"Elon Musk continued to bankroll Republican candidates after his public fallout with US President Donald Trump, donating millions of dollars to campaign groups gearing up for next year’s midterm elections."

Financial Times reports.

On July 5, a frustrated Musk claimed to have formed the “America Party”, saying he would “focus for the next twelve months” on supporting candidates standing against Republicans. However, there has been no sign of Musk or his allies taking the necessary steps to establish a party, either at a local level or nationwide....

"And um recently I made the decision that I just for now I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken...."

"I believe and I always believed that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that um they're not as strong as they need to be. And I just don't want to for now I don't want to go back in the system. I want to I want to travel the country. I want to listen to people. I want to talk with people. And I don't want it to be transactional where I'm asking for their vote...."

Said Kamala Harris, to Stephen Colbert (scroll to 6:02). 

Colbert said it is "harrowing" to hear her say that. When she responded: "Well, but it's also evident, isn't it?... It is harrowing..." Colbert broke in to rescue her. It sounds as though she's saying that she doesn't "want to be part of the fight anymore."

She takes the hint: "No. Oh, absolutely not. I am always going to be part of the fight. That is not going to change. I am absolutely going to be part of the fight."

And then she plunges into a Biden-worthy garble:

"Professors like myself hate ChatGPT and similar platforms because our students turn in artificially generated, robotic papers. But..."

"... if we ordinarily gave vapid, shallow papers the D’s or F’s they deserved, this problem wouldn’t exist. The fact that such papers routinely get A’s or B’s shows that we have come to expect and to train humans to write robotic papers. Similarly, when I worry I can’t distinguish a colleague’s genuine sentiments from the vaporous generalities Gmail’s AI suggests, what am I really worrying about? Is it that the machine is so good? Or that my interactions with my colleague are so empty? Once we step back from the paranoid reaction, the problem presented by AI facial recognition assumes different contours. In posing anew the question of facial control, the technology provides us with an opportunity to think about how such control works in both its artificial and natural forms...."

Writes Michael W. Clune, in "Your Face Tomorrow/The puzzle of AI facial recognition" (Harper's)(Harper's gives you 2 free articles a month, and I used one of mine to read that. I doubt that you'll find 2 better choices and recommend that you go ahead and redeem your freebie on the first of the month).