Sunrise — 5:51.

How I came to read "They shut me up in prose" (and talk about it with ChatGPT).

1. The Supreme Court, in a new opinion, used the word "who" to refer to Twitter (as if Twitter were a person (Elon Musk?)).

2. I studied the OED entry for "who" to see if there might be some justification for using "who" like that. Couldn't find any.

3. I became entranced by the "archaic or literary" use of "who" without an antecedent as in Shakespeare's "Who steales my purse, steals trash" and A.A. Milne's "Hush! Hush! whisper who dares, Christopher Robin is saying his prayers." We'd normally say "whoever" in that situation, but why is that? However did "ever" come to clutter our speech?

"If I do my job well, you come away listening to 'Blue Suede Shoes' the way people heard it in 1956, or 'Good Vibrations' the way people heard it in 1966..."

"... and understanding why people were so impressed by those records. That is simply *not possible* for the Grateful Dead. I can present a case for them as musicians.... I can explain the appeal as best I understand it.... But what I can’t do is present their recordings the way they were received in the sixties and explain why they were popular. Because every other act I have covered or will cover in this podcast has been a *recording* act, and their success was based on records. They may also have been exceptional live performers, but James Brown or Ike and Tina Turner are remembered for great *records*.... That is not the case for the Grateful Dead, and what is worse *they explicitly said, publicly, on multiple occasions* that it is not possible for me to understand their art, and thus that it is not possible for me to explain it.... [T]hey always said, consistently, over a thirty year period, that their records didn’t capture what they did, and that the only way — the *only* way, they were very clear about this — that one could actually understand and appreciate their music, was to see them live, and furthermore to see them live while on psychedelic drugs."

Says Andrew Hickey, beginning the long-awaited Episode 165 of his phenomenal podcast "A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs": "'Dark Star' by the Grateful Dead." 

Listen to the whole thing, but tell me, did you see The Grateful Dead live and while on psychedelic drugs? Having seen The Grateful Dead live and used psychedelic drugs but not at the same time is not enough.

"Did you send this because it's like DeSantis with Trump's head?"

I ask — it's my second question — after Meade texts me this:

 

"DeSantis with Trump's head" refers to the first post of the day, "Why is DeSantis peeling an orange?"

Was Virginia Heffernan's Wired article about Pete Buttigieg badly written?

I saw Wired's promotion of the article on Twitter 2 days ago (2 members of my family independently shared this with me, so it must be my kind of raw material):

With a remarkable blend of intellect and empathy, Pete Buttigieg brings a fresh perspective to the forefront of public discourse. https://t.co/mzbXgnvkSv

📷: ​​Argus Paul Estabrook pic.twitter.com/KzI3qKrIA2

— WIRED (@WIRED) May 18, 2023

I read the first few paragraphs of the article and felt stirred up to make fun of it, but then I stopped myself. This morning, I'm seeing a Legal Insurrection article by Mike LaChance that reflects the sort of mockery I nearly fell into: "Wired Magazine Gets Roasted for Cringeworthy Puff Piece on Pete Buttigieg/'he was willing to devote yet another apse in his cathedral mind to making his ideas about three mighty themes—neoliberalism, masculinity, and Christianity—intelligible to me.'"

Did I miss my chance to get in on the early mockery action or was I right to stop myself — because this thing might be brilliant writing? Is this something in the Hunter S. Thompson/Tom Wolfe tradition?

Legal Insurrection quotes the first, second, and fifth paragraphs and comments "It's so over the top." Yeah? And did the writer go over the top for a reason and with exciting, interesting words? Let's read the first 2 paragraphs and keep in mind that this might be great writing:

Why is DeSantis peeling an orange?

 

I haven't read the Time article, and I don't know why I should. I got the image from a Daily Mail article about it, "'Trump is NOT going to be happy!' Ron DeSantis' first Time cover depicts him eating an ORANGE in apparent dig at his GOP arch-rival - who's graced magazine's cover 35 times," and I haven't read that article, only the title.

The title is ridiculous. Why would this absurd image make Trump unhappy? If DeSantis has Time on his side (to coin a phrase), it's not going to help him with conservatives. 

And "eating an ORANGE"... he's not eating an orange. He's peeling an orange.

But I've got to admit that idiotic headline helped me understand why he's peeling an orange. I was puzzled and had to force myself to think about it. I thought: Oranges ≈ Florida. The Governor of Florida, soundly cupping the orange with one hand and tearing into it with the other, is saying Florida is mine, I control Florida.

But seeing The Daily Mail say that he's "eating" the orange in an "apparent dig at" Trump, I remember that Trump has long been derided as the "orange man." For some reason Trump has colored himself orange — dyed his skin and hair orange — and no amount of pointing and mockery and caricature will dissuade him from his color choice. It's a trademark.

So I'm convinced that Time intends the orange to be seen as Trump's head. The Daily Mail calls it a painting, so I'm going to assume that this is an artist's illustration and they didn't get DeSantis to pose holding and tearing into an orange. Notice the juice dripping down all over his hands. Such brutal orange peeling! Brutal and messy. What man in a suit would handle an orange like that? The idea is that's Trump's head and the powerful, remorseless DeSantis will obliterate the orange man.

But, good for Time. You made me look. You made me write a much longer blog post than you deserve. I don't care what you've got to say about DeSantis. Your text is just filler to back this image.

Sunrise — 5:35.

The forest at 5:38 a.m.

AI picks the stars for a present-day remake of "The Wizard of Oz"?

Click for TikTok video:

A strange but intriguing grammatical error in a Supreme Court opinion.

From yesterday's unanimous opinion, Twitter v. Taamneh, written by Justice Thomas:

The plaintiffs (who are respondents) contend that they have stated a claim for relief under §2333(d)(2). They were allegedly injured by a terrorist attack carried out by ISIS. But plaintiffs are not suing ISIS. Instead, they have brought suit against three of the largest social-media companies in the world—Facebook, Twitter (who is petitioner), and Google (which owns YouTube)—for allegedly aiding and abetting ISIS.

You'd think the proximity of "Twitter (who...)" to "Google (which...)" would set off somebody's grammar alarm. They're both corporations and — though it's sometimes said jocosely or not that "corporations are people" — they're not human beings and they don't get "who."

It's an outright error, but I'm interested in why something worked on by so many industrious writers and editors would fail to catch it. I came up with 2 ideas:

I had to mouse over "isqiisi" to get my first (and last) clue what new evil is currently aggravating Jordan Peterson.

You evil pathetic virtue signaling greedy corrupt panderers @isqiisi

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) May 19, 2023

Vulnerable, uncomfortable, transformative blog post.

"Ryan Malone, 37, a chemist who has lived on and off in Somerville for six years, said that he knows hundreds of people who identify as polyamorous..."

"... through his extended social circles. Mr. Malone, who has been nonmonogamous since he was in college, currently has a nesting partner, a long-term partner, two long-distance partners and a kink-based relationship with another person. Mr. Malone said he has never felt weird about going on dates with two or more people at the same time in Somerville. 'No one seems to bat an eye,' he said, so he sees the new protections as very subtle. Ashley Kirsner, 33, who has lived in Somerville for seven years, is the founder of Skip the Small Talk, an organization that offers speed-friending and speed-dating events.... Events like these, the support of the community and the city ordinances have helped Mx. Hall feel more seen. 'Every time a new book comes out, or a new protection comes into place, it feels like it’s validating your identity,' they said."

 
From "Interested in Polyamory? Check Out These Places/Laws granting rights to people in polyamorous relationships are being recognized in more cities" (NYT).

I googled "nesting partner." It's a standard term. I found this creepily illustrated Wikihow article on the subject. Creepily illustrated? I'm judging. The art.

How about "validating your identity"? Is that a standard term? Googling, I'm bombarded with material about ID cards, that kind of identity — are you really the person with the name, age, and address you're claiming? But what about the idea of validating your identity that is wanting your community to make outward gestures that approve of your cluster of personal relationships? 

Standard term or not, what do we make of this need to have the more complex aspects of your identity "validated"? It's funny that's going on at the same time that some people are getting invalidated — cancelled.

"People have realized that workplaces are full of bullies and weirdos and they don't want to deal with them anymore."

Says Esther Walker at 6 minutes and 9 seconds into this week's episode of the podcast "Giles Coren Has No Idea."

They're talking about the post-lockdown phenomenon of refusal to go back to work in the office. 

I enjoy her mode of expression. It's hyperbole, but it's getting at something true, no? It's a subjective matter — what's bullying and what's weird — but the topic is human behavior. It can't be anything but subjective.

"Adidas under fire as biological male models female-style swimming costume/Move has prompted criticism from women’s equality campaigners who argue it creates unrealistic body expectations for women."

Headline at The Telegraph.

No one was talking about Adidas bathing suits before, I don't think. Never heard of them. Have now.

Photos at the link. The caption is the best part: "Adidas has come under fire for advertising a female-style swimming costume using a model with a penis."

I like the British terminology: "swimming costume."

Isn't everything we wear a costume? Including our genitalia?

Caution: This is not about transgenders. We are told this is a "male model." Or... no, it doesn't say "male model." It says "biological male" and then the verb is "models." I didn't get past the paywall, so I have no idea if there is any discussion of the model's gender identity. What does it have to do with anything? Models are used for the way they look, not for how they feel inside. Often they have big smiles and, inside, they are dying. Sometimes they have a coolly austere pout and their mind is flooded with feelings of starvation and abuse.

ADDED: You might think I'm just trolling by saying "Isn't everything we wear a costume? Including our genitalia?," but I'm genuinely interested. You might not take the question seriously, so I consulted ChatGPT. 

I wrote:

"Being around birds is associated with better mental health."

Says this article in WaPo.

If a participant [in a study] reported seeing or hearing birds at one point, their mental well-being was higher, on average, hours later even if they did not encounter birds at the next check-in.... 

“Listening to birdsong through headphones was able to hit the same pathways that might be beneficial toward mental well-being.... That’s a very, very nice finding.”

One study compared people whose headphones played birdsong with those subjected to traffic noise.  

IN THE COMMENTS: Sean said:

Lemme guess, they didn't do crows.