At the Checkerboard Café...

... it's your move.

"Steven Mnuchin Refuses to Release Trump’s Tax Returns to Congress."

The NYT reports.

Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, wrote in a letter to Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that Mr. Neal’s request for the tax returns “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose” and that he was not authorized to disclose them.... "As you have recognized, the committee’s request is unprecedented, and it presents serious constitutional questions, the resolution of which may have lasting consequences for all taxpayers,” Mr. Mnuchin wrote in the one-page letter. He added that “the department may not lawfully fulfill the committee’s request.”...

Mr. Neal’s next move is not clear. He could file a lawsuit against the Treasury Department, accusing Mr. Mnuchin of not following the law, or he could try to access Mr. Trump’s returns with a subpoena. Both options would likely lead to a protracted fight through the court system....

To whose political advantage is a protracted fight through the court system? I would guess the President's and therefore that there will be no lawsuit, just loud and pesky argument against the President.

"[C]onversations that people not engaged in sex work have about it tend to involve a stew of unspoken anxieties about not just sex but migration, disease, race, class, and the roles of women."

"The living, human sex worker gets blotted out by the cultural figure that journalist Melissa Gira Grant has dubbed the 'prostitute imaginary.' This mythological creature is both corruptrix and release valve for male corruption. She is the temptress locked away to toil in the Magdalene Laundries, the disease spreader, the frivolous blonde with her Louboutin shoe collection, the soul broken by too much sex. And for many feminists, she is the ultimate example of female victimhood—in activist Dorchen Leidholdt’s words, a 'de-individualized, de-humanized' proxy for 'generic woman…. She stands in for all of us, and she takes the abuse that we are beginning to resist.' Once a sex worker becomes a metaphor, her material conditions cease to matter. She is an object for study, ministration, and control.... Perhaps no prostitute archetype raises so much lucrative concern as the trafficked girls.... Crusaders against trafficking can blur easily into persecutors of immigrants...."

A small snippet of "It’s Not About Sex" from the New York Review of Books.

The things that went wrong on TV last night were better than anything that went right.

There was a Starbucks cup of coffee on "Game of Thrones":



I don't give a damn about "Game of Thrones," and I don't even want to hear about why I should. But I do like the screwup of including a Starbucks cup.

Meanwhile, over on "American Idol" — which I do watch, and I don't need to hear about why I shouldn't — Katy Perry picked her butt:

When you forget your on live TV! 😂

You get that wedgie girl 😂💖 @katyperry @AmericanIdol
pic.twitter.com/Do3YaeACjt

— CAITLIN (@KCCAITLIN_) May 6, 2019

They eliminated my favorite contestant, Jeremiah Lloyd Harmon. The voters didn't want him, and the judges — faced with two losers and with only one "save" to give — chose the other loser. It was obvious her performances were worse, but to save the boy and send home the girl and leave a final 5 with 4 males and only one female was apparently intolerable. And I think the show's effort to portray Jeremiah as rejected by his conservative parents because he's gay kind of backfired. His parents weren't public figures who deserved public scorn even if they were awful, but they were a lot nicer to him than the show wanted to make it look, as Jeremiah himself pointed out back when he was soaring in the competition (in early April):

Listen to Alan Dershowitz explain the New York accent and think about what people love/hate about Trump.

This great little documentary came out before the ascendency of Trump, but it made me think a lot about why some people get Trump and others don't:



I've been meaning to show you that clip and invite you to think about the love and hate for Trump in terms of the New York speech pattern, and what put me over the top this morning was Bay Area Guy on the previous post (about Trump's new tweet, "they have stolen two years of my (our) Presidency"):

Once you get to "decode" Trump's manner and style of speaking/writing (a brash New Yorker), you realize that he's basically right on most things.

ADDED: One thing Dershowitz talks about in that clip is hand gestures, and we know Trump is big with the hand gestures:



People who don't understand that believe he imitated (and mocked) a disabled man. Here, this shows it's a normal gesture for him, used to show confusion and not about disability:

"... they have stolen two years of my (our) Presidency... that we will never be able to get back..."

Trump, on Twitter this morning, here and here:

Despite the tremendous success that I have had as President, including perhaps the greatest ECONOMY and most successful first two years of any President in history, they have stolen two years of my (our) Presidency (Collusion Delusion) that we will never be able to get back.....

.....The Witch Hunt is over but we will never forget. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Wearisome headline of the day: "How gender bias is shaping the 2020 Democratic primary."

The article is in The Washington Post and is by Amber Phillips. I will read it so you don't have to.

Summary:  Hillary lost in 2016, and she blamed misogyny. If a woman is the Democratic Party nominee in 2020, she might lose too, and it might be because of misogyny. Therefore people might worry that the candidate shouldn't be a woman, because she might lose because of misogyny.

There's some evidence some people support Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren but worry that she can't win against Trump, and that translates to: "I’d vote for a woman for president, but I’m not sure my neighbor would."

So how is gender bias shaping the 2020 Democratic primary? The theory is that Democrats deciding which candidate to support consider electability and factor in the misogyny they think other people will bring to their decisionmaking.

I wonder if articles like "How gender bias is shaping the 2020 Democratic primary" are shaping the Democratic primary. What if the problem Harris and Warren are having is not so much that anyone is actually biased against them because they are women but that we've heard so much about bias against women that we're imagining the bias of other people and holding it against them?

But don't look for the wearisome flow of articles about gender bias to stop. And that's how you get more Biden. And Sanders. And Beto. And Buttigieg. It's the devious cycle of male supremacy! Detect it, talk about, and you'll help it work. Just a theory — skewed by weariness.

IN THE COMMENTS: John Henry writes:

I don't see why electability is an issue at all for the Demmies.

Unless something unforseeable happens, they seem to have no chance at all to beat PDJT in 2020.

They might as well go bold and make a statement.

Or, they can just figure it is Sleepy's turn and nominate him warts and all.

I agree that Trump is on track to win, but that's a reason not to nominate a woman. If a woman is the candidate and she loses, then you have 2 female candidates in a row who lost. That will reinforce the belief that women are hard to elect. Pick a man, so when he loses, it will facilitate the rise of women in the future. And Sleepy gets his turn.

"She’s warm in winter, shady in summer."

From an old Texas Monthly article collecting Texas turns of phrase. It's got excellent illustrations which is why I'm reading it. I happened to click through from some random image search. The article is from 1994.

The quote in the post title is, supposedly, the way a Texan might express the observation that a woman is fat.

The illustrations are by Henrik Drescher, who I remember was all over the magazines of the 1990s. More Drescher images here (at Pinterest).

"A party advertised on social media drew as many as 300 young people on Saturday night to a public housing complex in Manhattan’s East Village..."

"... where residents said partygoers paid $10 to enter a basement room usually reserved for tenant meetings. The music was blasting as the crowd, which included teenagers from an elite public high school in Brooklyn, spilled into the courtyard. Barely an hour had passed before residents of the development, the First Houses, called the police at about 10 p.m. But someone upstairs had decided to do something about it. White paint and a caustic chemical were poured from overhead, burning at least 10 of the teenagers in the courtyard, the police said on Sunday.... After the paint and chemicals rained down, some partygoers rushed the East Third Street building’s front door and attempted to force their way in, slamming their fists against the door’s glass panes, cracking one, said Michael Strachan, 60, who lives in the building. One of the residents who had gathered in a first-floor hallway went to the door and showed her government identification to the young people through the glass, witnesses said. The group quickly scattered at the sight of the ID and the arriving police, who told them to back off.... 'I’m concerned because this is a gated community,' [one tenant] said. 'No one should have been in the gate to begin with unless they live here.'"

From "10 Teenagers Burned by Acidlike Liquid Thrown From Above at Raucous Party/The teenagers, some of them students at Brooklyn Tech, had been partying in a rented basement room at a public housing complex in Manhattan’s East Village" (NYT).

That's a lot of chaos. Count the manifestations of failure of empathy.

It's a very old-fashioned remedy — I think I used to see it in the old comic strips — pouring a liquid from the upper story onto somebody who's bothering you in the street below. But this was a "caustic chemical," an "acidlike liquid." Cruel, depending on what, exactly, the liquid was.

If it were a private house and the homeowner discovered that teenagers had broken in and were having a party, what could the homeowner do? Here, you have people living in "a public housing complex," and they want to think that the rules and the gate protect them from intruders. What can they do? We hear that they "called the police at about 10 p.m. But someone upstairs had decided to do something about it," but we're not told what time that person upstairs made that decision. Was it 15 minutes later? And hour later? 2 hours later? I don't know. I do know that if I called the police and reported an unauthorized party in my basement, they'd be here in 5 minutes.

Clearly, the NYT's sympathy is with the burned/"burned" teenagers. The tenant is made to look like heartless and privileged: "I’m concerned because this is a gated community." A gated community! But it's East Village public housing. Shouldn't these residents feel secure in their homes? I'm not defending pouring acid on teenagers. I'm saying people want security and if they don't get it from the authorities, they tend to resort to self-help.

IN THE COMMENTS: Observing that the NYT wrote "caustic chemical" and "Acidlike Liquid," mockturtle wrote, "Well, which is it? Caustic is alkaline."

"You aren’t enjoying reading? Then read longer! Read faster! The problem is you!"

"But the corollary to this way of reading — of taking books down in gulps rather than sips — is that you will discover much more quickly when a book isn’t for you, and you can then set it aside without the nagging suspicion that you might have sabotaged it by your method of ingestion.... Once I’m actually enjoying a book, it really does feel as if the pages are turning themselves; I find myself reading in all the little pockets of time that were once reserved for the serious business of checking to see if my dishwasher pods have shipped. And pleasure is, after all — once I scrape away the layers of self-image and pretentiousness — the reason that I read. When I’ve found the right book, and I’m reading it the right way, reading is fun — head-tingling, goosebump-raising fun. It’s a vivid and continuous dream that is somehow both directed from without and cast from within, and I get to be awake for it. Netflix can wait."

From "Why You Should Start Binge-Reading Right Now" by Ben Dolnick (NYT).

Have you lost the habit of reading books — either because you've become binge-watcher of TV (which I hate to tell you is all that Netflix is) or because you've been reading screens and have developed a style of reading (searching, wandering, jumping about, writing) that is so completely different from what a book seems to want you to do to it? If so, maybe the solution is to find a new way to read books that is more like what you've been doing staring into screens. That's where Dolnick (a novelist) wants to push you. It involves sitting with a book for a long time but reading it fast — binge-reading.

Will that work? Dolnick discovered the method he recommends one night when he had nothing to do all evening but read a book: "the power went out and, unable to watch Netflix or engage in my customary internet fugue, I lit a candle and picked up a thriller by Ruth Rendell." At some point he found he was reading very quickly and the reading material proved fascinating and compelling. If you'd just read fast and long, you could have the same experience. Even if the power is not off? Even if there's still some life in the battery of any iPad or laptop? Well, he's saying he made the discovery under these stark limitations. You can just take his advice and do it.

But how? You've restructured your mind. You've followed your own impulses and responses, and you've come to find reading nonlinearly, jumpily, on-line is your style. That's me. Maybe you're the person who binge-watches television. But whatever. You're doing it your way. Why should you change? Because you should be reading books? Dolnick isn't saying that. He's saying reading is fun. (Like the old library poster.)

I understand the concept: If you'd just get to the point where you see what Dolnick saw that time when the power went off, you'd keep going and you'd make book-reading your thing too. It would be just as good as the other things you've been doing with your attention — or better. Maybe, but are we not having fun with our on-screen reading? Are we not having fun watching television? I guess I could read a book on the psychology of fun. I have read in a book — long ago (this book) — that the things we fall into doing for fun can put us in a condition of entropy, which doesn't feel good at all. Anyway, I doubt if the enticement to reading books — come on, it's fun — will work on many adults, and when I think about spending more time sitting with an actual book, I don't think about racing through it, gulping. I think about looking at really great sentences and experiencing aesthetic pleasure.

But that's just me. And I've found a way to read a lot of books. I go for long walks and listen to audiobooks. That forces me to proceed through the whole thing linearly. My jumping-around style of reading on line can't take over. I'm on the book's time. And I'm getting out, moving around, and giving my eyes a break from looking at words. That works for me. I think my solution is better than Dolnick's, better for me anyway, perhaps because what I do reading (and writing) on line is better than what Dolnick says he does — the "internet fugue" of poking around doing things like "checking to see if my dishwasher pods have shipped." And I think the books I'm audiobook-reading are higher quality. A thriller by Ruth Rendell? I know. It's for fun. That makes me feel like poking around on the internet, getting ideas about the history, philosophy, and psychology of fun... and then write a blog post about it, have an in-person conversation about the blog post with Meade, and then go on a long walk and listen to "Kafka on the Shore."

You have your fun, I'll have mine.

At the Floating Clouds Café...

... drift on.

Baseball heroics.

Silver lining sign meet Gold Glove candidate. #NotToday pic.twitter.com/jAGkidxenX

— Milwaukee Brewers (@Brewers) May 5, 2019

Scott Adams v. Bill Maher. Adams wins.

Reminds me of the $500 I won after someone bet me Obama would try to become a dictator and never leave office. https://t.co/EYkKo6Sfkm

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 5, 2019

"Before opening night, more than 12,000 people signed a petition calling for the theater to cancel the show."

"They argued that using a puppet to portray [the autistic character] Laurence 'dehumanizes autistic children' and promotes the harmful 'common misconceptions that we lack feelings and empathy.' They also slammed the play for focusing on the parents’ experience over Laurence’s perspective. These critics adopted the hashtag '#puppetgate' to spread the word on Twitter; many included another hashtag, #ActuallyAutistic, widely used by people on the spectrum.... The backlash took playwright Alex Oates by surprise. He wrote the script based on his years of experience as a care worker for a severely autistic child. He sought input from people on the spectrum and the parents of the child who had inspired the story. As for the puppet, it seemed more sensitive to him to use a 'creative medium' than to ask an actor to mimic the condition. The controversy over Oates’s play is just one example of a deep divide in the autism community: On one side are parents of autistic children with severe traits — including intellectual disability, limited language ability and self-harm — who say autism is a medical condition that needs often-intense treatment. On the other side are supporters of 'neurodiversity,' who maintain that the condition represents a neurological difference and a disability — one that society should accept and accommodate rather than try to prevent or cure."

From "A medical condition or just a difference? The question roils autism community" (WaPo).

The problem of the puppet and the play is only a small part of what's at the link. I was struck by that part of the article because I just watched "Won't You Be My Neighbor," the documentary about Mr. Rogers, and in a memorable part — I wish I could find a clip — there was analysis of the use of puppets on the show, which also used human actors. It was clear that the purpose served by the puppets was the opposite of dehumanization. Rogers used the tiger puppet to express his own most intimate inner self and to say the things that he as a human actor could not say. The puppet was more revealing, more feeling, more human. Off the show, and meeting children in person, he used the tiger puppet to connect with children. In one clip, using the tiger, he draws a boy into revealing his sadness about the death of his dog. There can be so much humanity in puppetry.

I could say many more things about the linked article. I'd like to say more about the neurodiversity movement, which I think is important and has a downside to it (which is that the less severely affected persons are the ones doing the talking). But in the interest of keeping a blog post short, I simply want to cry out against the disrespect for puppetry!

"People keep falling into the Grand Canyon. After a visit, I can see why.... It’s because they’re idiots."

Just a throwaway, obvious column in the Washington Post — by John Kelly, one of WaPo's regulars. I'm linking to quote some comments:

1. "I get queasy just reading this article. I figured with the huge mobs there, they must be accidentally edging each other off. Hey that is a thought, shouldn't the president of this fair land take a trip to the Grand Canyon and take a real close view?"

2. "Oh, please...I’ll even drive him there!"

3. "ROAD TRIP!"

Trump Derangement Syndrome, symptom #1: When things aren't at all about Trump, you visualize violence against him and get off on your vision.

Ridiculous conversation about me and Trump.

From the comments section of a post of mine that went up this morning — the title is a quote from someone else — "Time’s up, baby boomers. It’s Gen X’s turn now":

COMMENTER: "Why do you show so much interest in the Democratic primary? It seems your goal is to do anything that will keep Trump in office."

ME: "What in this post seems to be in service to that goal? Do I seem to be helping Biden and you think Biden is a weak opponent for Trump? If that's your idea, click on the 'biden' tag and read the last 10 posts I wrote about Biden and make sense of your theory. Or does 'seems' just mean you looked at one thing and a whole flood of imaginative ideas came into your head?

COMMENTER (addressing my first question, "What in this post seems to be in service to that goal?"): "Not this one. The preponderance of all the others. They seem to convey an appreciative sort of invincibility about him."

ME, without reading on to see how he answered my other questions: "Do you have any sense of how ludicrous that is?"

And let me also quote this, from Nobody:

You know that anybody who wants to undermine Trump with Althouse’s readers could easily do so by getting specific in the comments with actual cases of Trump “corruption” and then defending them against objections. But when the anti Trump comments all and I mean ALL amount to either trivialities, or hyperbolic denunciations reeking of kerosene breath, or vague smears that the commenter refuses to back up with facts, then it seems like the trolls here are doing more to support Trump than Althouse is. She is giving you the forum, all of you, and yet you don’t take it on. How can we not draw the conclusion that you guys have nothing?

Going on pearl clutching about pee pee tapes for two years, and then showing zero humility when it all turned out to be bullshit is just one thing.