Who do you think will be the Democratic Party nominee?

I say Elizabeth Warren.

She's the one who's really fighting for it, and she's the best choice to go up against Trump. She's got the verbal clarity and aggression, and she can take hits without crumpling. She's the most like Trump in style and skill.

I'm not talking about where she is on the political spectrum or all the policies, and I'm not saying who I want to be President. I'm just predicting and expressing a preference about the debate I'd most like to watch. And I assume Trump will win. I just would like to see him have to go through a hard fight, and not a boring fight.

Watch Kamala Harris hand over the microphone with zero resistance to a goofball lunatic:



Harris passively waits for it to be her turn to intone a series of words.

Liz seizes the opportunity.

Hey, I already have a tag that says "Warren is like Trump."

ADDED:

Here’s the thing: When a candidate tells you about all the things that aren’t possible, about how political calculations come first, they’re telling you something very important. They’re telling you that they will not fight for you. Not me. I’m here to fight for our country. pic.twitter.com/SZBBUkfomi

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) June 2, 2019

"Sometimes you feel like an animal in a cage. But in Los Angeles, no one cares."

"There’s definitely paparazzi chasing after you, but I don’t go out much, I don’t really do anything. I’m pretty boring."

Said Keanu Reeves, quoted in "Keanu Reeves Admits He’s A Lonely Guy And Says, 'I Don’t Have Anyone In My Life'" (a "7 min read" at Bright Feed).

Kamala cautiously takes on the criticism "She’s very cautious."

So David Axelrod had disparaged Kamala Harris on at least 2 occasions:

1. “She is an incredibly compelling personality; a very bright and accomplished person... But she’s very cautious — and that caution was pretty apparent in a lot of her answers.”

2. “She’s a brilliant person, there’s no doubt about that... But what we’ve learned so far is that she’s great at asking questions but timid at answering them. She’s going to have to correct that to navigate this process.”

And it's not as though KH noticed and decided to push him right back (which is the sort of thing Trump does (he always hits back)). Politico put her on the spot and asked. You can't be very cautious and sound timid when asked whether you're too cautious and timid, can you?

Asked by POLITICO about Axelrod’s concerns — part of a line of criticism that Harris aides and allies broadly believe is tinged with sexism and not applied in the same way to the men running for president — Harris paused for a few seconds before saying, “I don’t know what to tell you."

Wow. Politico had to try to cushion the effect of the embarrassing confirmation of Axelrod's take. Look at that ridiculous extra material inserted in between the dashes. That's not what KH said when asked, and it's such mushy stuff — "broadly believe," "tinged."

“Axelrod was on the road with Barack a decade ago,” she added. “I’ve invited him to come on the road with me ... (and he’d see) “contrary to what he thinks is happening.”

She won't defend herself in words. Can that work in politics? I can imagine the most wonderful person in the world responding to attacks by murmuring "If you really knew me, you wouldn't say that." But would you choose that person as your champion, to do battle for you against bold adversaries?

As for whether the critiques of her are grounded in sexism, Harris said some of those making the charges about her “should do a better job of performing themselves.”

Again, she confirms Axelrod's take. She won't be direct. She exhibits nice modesty. I think it is better for female candidates to refrain from characterizing criticism as sexist, but you still need an answer, and her failure to answer is more evidence that Axelrod is right.

Incredibly, Politico's article ends with a quote from Willie Brown: "I would have said, ‘What did he say? I didn’t read it... Axel-who?'"

That forces me to go looking for what, exactly, is the connection between Kamala Harris and Willie Brown? I only remember the crude joking that continually turns up in the comments. Here's a piece published yesterday in The Washington Examiner: "Kamala Harris’ first significant political role was an appointment by her powerful then-boyfriend Willie Brown, three decades her senior, to a California medical board that has been criticized as a landing spot for patronage jobs and kickbacks. Then 30, Harris was dating 60-year-old Willie Brown, at the time the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly, when he placed her on the California Medical Assistance Commission [which met twice a month]. The position paid over $70,000 per year...."

Hickenlooper's pitch: Be careful, or you'll get more Trump.

The quote is: "You know, if we’re not careful, we’re going to end up reelecting the worst president in American history" (WaPo). That was his comeback, when the crowd booed him for saying, "If we want to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the answer."

In other words: Socialism doesn't work toward the goal of getting our party elected.

So... vote for him because he'll refrain from saying that word that bothers some of those people out there. But the people in his audience aren't inspired, and really, why should they believe that people will vote for a person whose pitch is that he'll try not to bother those other people?

The WaPo writer supplements Hickenlooper's weak pitch with material from a Wall Street Journal op-ed that ran under his name last month: He's "running to save" the "only economic system that can support a strong middle class." And Hickenlooper responded to a phone call and conceded that he'd spoken "inartfully" (with the problem seeming to be that he was picking on Bernie Sanders, the out-and-proud socialist in the race).

But in that phone interview, he repeated the pitch that got booed: "If we’re not willing to draw a bright line and say we’re not socialists, we could quite possibly reelect this president."

Years ago, I knew a man who had the verbal tic of saying "quite possibly." I think I may have cured him of it by repeating "quite possibly" back to him when he said it. Oh, it was all in good fun. It was funny. And he really did need to be cured of that.

Does Hickenlooper have that tic? He says things like, "These are certainly big ideas. But they’re also quite possibly very bad ideas," and "It’s not that they wouldn’t get a pathway to citizenship, but what I said was if you put it aside and didn’t make that a part of the immediate solution, quite possibly you’d get to a pathway to citizenship faster..."

You see how the "quite possibly" weaseling works. (Check your weasel for tics.)

But maybe it's a fantastic way to exhibit carefulness and thereby beat Trump. In fact, I propose it as a slogan:

  John Hickenlooper — quite possibly!

At the Saturday Night Cafe...

... you can talk about whatever you want.

"The rape allegedly occurred in King’s presence; the FBI document claims King 'looked on, laughed and offered advice' to the preacher."

"Mr. Garrow said neither he nor the FBI could be sure who that woman was, though he continues to try to identify her. He notes that there is no evidence in the documents he has seen that FBI agents who were apparently listening in when the alleged rape occurred tried to stop the attack. As someone who admired King, Mr. Garrow said it brought him no pleasure to reveal what he found about King hidden among 54,000 digital files concerning President John Kennedy’s assassination that the National Archives dumped onto its web page over the past two years. 'But I felt a professional obligation to say... Hey folks, we are probably going to have documented evidence that’s not pleasant about King in 2027.'"

From "Former Pitt professor reassessing view of MLK after he uncovers new FBI documents/Historian David Garrow won 1986 Pulitzer Prize for biography on King" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

"So no one should express partisan certainty regarding President Trump’s suggestion that the Supreme Court might well decide that impeaching a president without evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors is unconstitutional."

Writes Alan Dershowitz, surprising me (and I taught the constitutional law relating to impeachment for many years). He writes:

Two former, well-respected justices of the Supreme Court first suggested that the judiciary may indeed have a role in reining in Congress were it to exceed its constitutional authority. Justice Byron White, a John F. Kennedy appointee, put it this way:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibility because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush-appointee, echoed his predecessor: “If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results … judicial interference might well be appropriate.”

It is not too much of a stretch from the kind of constitutional crises imagined by these learned justices to a crisis caused by a Congress that impeached a president without evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The president is not above the law, but neither is Congress, whose members take an oath to support, not subvert, the Constitution. And that Constitution does not authorize impeachment for anything short of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Here's the case he's talking about Nixon v. United States. — about a federal judge named Nixon who challenged the procedure the Senate used to convict him. All of the Justices rejected Nixon's attempted appeal to the judiciary. The Souter and White opinions were concurring opinions. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist (and joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) stressed the "textually demonstrable commitment" of the issue to the Senate, which is given the "sole Power to try all Impeachments." (The House is given "the sole Power of Impeachment.") Even though that case was about a judge, the Court took into account the special need for finality that would exist in the case of a President:

The NYT risks looking transphobic, with "Chest Binding Helps Smooth the Way for Transgender Teens, but There May Be Risks/People who use binders report symptoms like back and chest pain, overheating and shortness of breath."

And the comments to the article (by Amy Sohn) are full of expressions of thanks. The top-rated comment:

Thank you, Amy Sohn for this article. Thank you. And thank you for naming the work of 4thwavenow. The health impacts of experimental transgender medicine on children and teens very much needs to be brought to the public's attention.

From the doctor [quoted in the article]: “It’s strange to me that someone would think of a binder as being a form of self-harm when there are so many other garments used by gender-typical people to change their appearance that are also extremely uncomfortable (hello high heels …).”"

Everyone should be concerned about this blase attitude from clinicians with regards to potential harm being done to otherwise healthy bodies. And the bodies of children at that. High heels are not benign. High heels hurt women's feet, backs, knees, and can permanently change your physical structure. Binders should be seen as yet another way of "fixing" the female body, when there is nothing wrong in the first place.

Again, thank you.

Another comment:

Thank you for this article , it’s the first time I’ve seen the Times recognize (if ever so slightly) the epidemic of teenage girls suddenly identifying as trans. Breast binding, cross sex hormones, double mastectomies (what you call “top surgeries”) and phalloplasties are dangerous, invasive interventions with lifelong consequences. None of these coping strategies for bodily distress are healthy or sustainable. There is little proof that they are even effective at relieving dysphoria / dysmorphia. Teen girls that are in distress about their bodies need loving and intense therapeutic support. If they aren’t heterosexual and/or feminine, they need and deserve full family acceptance of this. Parents should never enable or validate self harm or self hatred. These kids deserve better care that teaches them to love and accept their bodies and themselves. If they decide to medically transition as adults, in full understanding of the risks and benefits , that’s their choice. But kids should not be pushed onto this beltway.

And:

Pageantry.

Miss India contestants. They all have the same hair, and the SAME SKIN COLOUR, and I'm going to hazard a guess that their heights and vital stats will also be similar. So much for India being a 'diverse' country. pic.twitter.com/L4yXG0WvRu

— labellagorda (@labellagorda) May 27, 2019

"We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets."

"A cell with a maximum capacity of 12 held 76 detainees, another with a maximum capacity of eight held 41, and another with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155, according to the report. '[Customs and Border Protection] was struggling to maintain hygienic conditions in the holding cells. With limited access to showers and clean clothing, detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks... Corrective action is critical to the immediate health and safety needs of detainees, who cannot continue to be held in standing-room-only conditions for weeks until additional tents are constructed'..."

So says a report on a leaked forthcoming report by The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General about an inspection of an El Paso Border Patrol facility. I'm reading that at ABC 10 News San Diego, but it says the report was obtained by CNN. I went to CNN.com to get their link, because I prefer the direct source, but multiple searches of the CNN front page make me think it is not there. And there are a lot of headlines on the CNN.com front page, and much of that stuff is inconsequential clickbait, such as "Jennifer Aniston's plane lost a tire, and somehow Jimmy Kimmel is involved" and...

Maybe that's a robot that laughs just like you, CNN, you creepy, quasi-human entity, but don't say I smile and frown like that. How about some serious coverage of this overcrowding? I watched a little of your TV channel yesterday, and I heard your newsfaces emitting sounds on the subject of Trump's tariffs (which I see as a desperate effort to shock Mexico into helping us with the border emergency) and they were going on about how price increases on goods from Mexico would cost us Americans some money — as if that's a human tragedy, avocados getting pricey. I watched Jake Tapper maintaining that frown he does so well. Does he frown just like Sophia?

I want to be fair, so I'm going to the transcript of yesterday's show, which I only watched out of the corner of my eye as I was trying to read. I remember noticing the style and mannerisms of the guest Robby Mook, which are very exaggerated and make him seem to be something from the uncanny valley. (By the way, the men's faces on Tapper's show are thickly slathered with opaque makeup, and I was commenting out loud that the men look like they are made of latex (and that was before I "met" Sophia the Robot).)

The transcript helps me avoid the distraction of the facial fakery. And I can see that there was, in fact, some talk of the inspector's report:

Insect politics.

So what is your solution? Crickets? https://t.co/7tQV3f352J

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) May 31, 2019

At Purple Café...

... you can talk all night.

Trump at the Air Force Academy graduation, saluting and shaking hands with every cadet — individually, over the course of an hour, and with unflagging — even escalating — enthusiasm.

"He was accused of spying for the United States for poorly reporting on the negotiations without properly grasping U.S. intentions."

He = Kim Hyok Chol, who was the head negotiator for the summit between Kim Jong Un and President Trump, and who, it seems, was executed in March. The quote in the post title comes from an unidentified source.

ADDED: Who knows? Maybe it's just a "death recorded."

UPDATE, June 4: "The report's veracity was called into question Sunday after North Korean state media reported that Kim Yong Chol attended an art performance alongside Kim Jong Un. An invitation to join to join the North Korean leader in public would likely not be extended to someone who had fallen out of favor" (CNN). My "Who knows?" above was written just a few minutes after the original post, so I was dubious about this story from the start.

"Today who believes anything in the WaPo or NYT?"

Said David Begley in the comments to "The Washington Post spoke to seven scholars of the eugenics movement; all of them said that Thomas’s use of this history was deeply flawed."

I spend most of my news-reading time on WaPo and the NYT because they're better, and the alternatives are worse. I've defended my practice many times. I'm so often challenged by readers when I engage with the text of these MSM outlets. They ask why I'm still reading that, and my answer has always been that it's the best there is. Readers prod me to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart, but my view has been that stuff is too trashy. I can't stand it, and I'm not interested in writing about it.

But this morning the issue strikes me in a different way because yesterday I encountered the opinion, "You should only read what is truly good or what is frankly bad." I wrote:

[The] idea seems to be that there's a special harm in exposing yourself to things that are only somewhat good. Better to read outwardly trashy things than trash that has been inflated. And then there's also the idea that those who inflate trash are dead.

It was Gertrude Stein (as presented by Hemingway) who said "You should only read what is truly good or what is frankly bad." And she characterized Aldous Huxley as "dead" because his writings were not truly good but trash "inflated" to seem somewhat good. ("Why do you read this trash? It is inflated trash, Hemingway. By a dead man.") So I'm thinking about that.

Maybe the worst thing to read is something that's dressed up to seem as though it's not trash. Maybe it is better to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart... and Slate and Vox or whatever. Read the frankly bad.

Ah, but I don't need to protect myself like that. I hope you're reading me because you think I'm "truly good," and I pursue true goodness by reading the somewhat good things for you. I'm choosing to expose myself to the deleterious, inflated trash. I'll approach the corpse. Gertrude Stein still talked about the "dead" man who inflated trash. That's all I'm doing, talking about the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Bonus debate issue: Trump's tweets are frankly bad, and that's why it's good to want to read them.

Second bonus debate issue: If there's one thing that deserves to be viewed as deleterious, inflated trash, it's judicial opinions. (I am a professor emerita, having spent too many years palpating that corpse.)

The source of the myth that you need 10,000 steps a day is a Japanese clockmaker that marketed a pedometer called Manpo-kei in 1965.

There's no more science to it than that. Read Marketwatch, here.

Believing hitting the 10,000 number might motivate you to push a little further or to do it every day. Sorry to spoil that for you. But did you actually believe that 10,000 was magical?

Do you have any beliefs involving numbers? Do you know the point at which it deserves to be called "arithomania"? It would be funny if your answer to that last question had a number in it? (It's arithmomania when you've got 10 beliefs about numbers.)

Arithomania is a mental disorder that may be seen as an expression of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). Individuals suffering from this disorder have a strong need to count their actions or objects in their surroundings. Sufferers may for instance feel compelled to count the steps while ascending or descending a flight of stairs or to count the number of letters in words. They often feel it is necessary to perform an action a certain number of times to prevent alleged calamities. Other examples include counting tiles on the floor or ceiling, the number of lines on the highway, or simply the number of times one breathes or blinks, or touching things a certain number of times such as a door knob or a table....

I'm empty and aching and I don't know why/Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike/They've all come to look for Arithomania....

IN THE COMMENTS: EDH brings up Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour rule and "New Study Destroys Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 Hour Rule." And Limited blogger said "I always thought 10,000 Maniacs was an unusually large number of maniacs." Here's the Wikipedia article "10,000" where you can make many discoveries about the meaning of 10,000. I'll just pick one, from Taoism:

The great Tao covers everything like a flood.
It flows to the left and to the right.
The ten thousand things depend upon it
and it denies none of them.
It accomplishes its task yet claims no reward.
It clothes and feeds the ten thousand things
yet it does not attempt to control them.
Therefore, it may be called "the little."
The ten thousand things return to it,
even though it does not control them.
Therefore, it may be called "the great."

So it is that the True Person does not wish to be great
and therefore becomes truly great.