"One of the worst things to happen in America in the last two years is, surely, the birth and spread of the phrase 'nothing burger.'"

"It is used by President Trump’s supporters whenever Robert Mueller issues anything, including the many times he’s issued things that are, quite clearly, something burgers, with lots of shocking and damaging information that implicates people close to the President in something that seems like potential collusion with Russia or other possibly related crimes. [The Paul Manafort sentencing memo], Mueller’s longest, can be seen, by avid followers of his investigation, as not only an exquisitely built nothing burger but a commentary on our age and our expectations—at least, as it relates to the question of collusion during the 2016 election. Andy Kaufman could have hardly done so good a job at tweaking our deepest hunger."

Writes Adam Davidson in The New Yorker in "Robert Mueller’s Nothing-Burger Sentencing Memo on Paul Manafort."

Help me understand what Davidson was picturing when he wrote "Andy Kaufman could have hardly done so good a job at tweaking our deepest hunger." Presumably, he thinks Andy Kaufman did a really good job of tweaking our deep hungers, but which hungers? When? Can you dig up any clips of Kaufman that show him excelling at tweaking deep hungers? Outstripping Andy Kaufman — in Davidson's idea is Robert Mueller — right? — not the "avid followers" of the investigation. The "avid followers" are the audience for Mueller, and Mueller, like Kaufman, is seen as putting on a show for aficionados.

We, the audience, sit expectantly, wanting something from the showman, but he  withholds, even as he maintains our rapt attention. We keep watching, because he's captured our attention, but Mueller has captured our attention because we hope/fear he's got something devastating on Trump. The "deepest hunger" Davidson is thinking about is for the destruction of Trump. How is that like what Andy Kaufman did when — to name 2 examples of Kaufman playing with audience expectations — he did a show that consisted of nothing but singing all the verses of "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" or he stood on stage and read the entire text of "The Great Gatsby"?

There was no "deep hunger" that Kaufman was tweaking. He was tweaking the shallow hunger — borne of ticket-buying and seat-sitting — that there will be a show. When will this get funny? The joke is that it will never get funny. It will just go on like this. It's the nothing. The joke's on you for expecting something conventional and the only way to squirm out of your predicament is to realize it before the other people sitting around you not understanding that I'm never going to give you what you're dumb enough to want.

Am I approaching the enigma of the Mueller/Kaufman comparison?



ADDED: Davidson is surely wrong that the term "nothingburger" was born in the last 2 years! The OED traces the term all the way back to 1953. The official definition is: "A person or thing of no importance, value, or substance. Now esp.: something which, contrary to expectations, turns out to be insignificant or unremarkable."

Maybe Davidson — a fan of Kaufman's? — really is doing comedy. I must admit I laughed a lot while reading it out loud last night. He can't really mean that the phrase "nothing burger" is "One of the worst things to happen in America," so that's the tip-off, right? I'm overthinking this. I know!

But he could be serious. Aside from the mistake of believing the term got born during the Trump administration, he could genuinely believe it's one of the worst things to happen in America in the last 2 years. All he'd need is a long "worst things" list. You could have a list of "The 1 Million Worst Things to Happen in the Last 2 Years," and then some irritating word could be on it.

"Hey James can u pet me in a Bugatti?"

From a collection of responses to requests for photoshopping, by James Fridman.

"Nancy Cherryl Burgess-Dismuke had been wrestling with her dogs outside a mobile home in South Carolina when... two of the dogs, both boxer-mixes, became 'aggressive'...."

"Neighbors helped pull her away from the dogs and call paramedics, who applied tourniquets to her wounds and rushed her to a nearby hospital.... Amber Greer, who called 911, told the Greenville News that, 'It went from looking like they were really playing to them really eating her alive.'... Authorities are investigating the death; the autopsy results, including the cause and manner of death, are still pending."

WaPo reports.

The second-most-up-voted comment is: "We have six working dogs on our ranch. It's a bad idea to get dogs worked up and aggressive, especially when they're in a pack (2 or more dogs working together). As smart and fun and amazing as they can be, dogs are animals with powerful instincts that can be greatly magnified by pack behavior."

Meanwhile: "Video of Ocasio-Cortez being lovingly attacked by a dog goes viral after #NationalLoveYourPetDay" (The Hill).

Snuggle ambush in the Bronx while I was on a conference call 🐶 https://t.co/FraWfG8QCh

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 22, 2019

Lovingly attacked... just remember that phrase as you emulate AOC.

At the Saturday Café...

... it could keep you up all night.

"... a fresh human turd — yes, a turd! — her own, one hoped..."

For the new installment of the "Bonfire" project — where we're reading passages from Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities" — I offer this, from Kindle Location 3222:

Nick Stopping said he had dinner the other night at the home of Stropp, the investment banker, on Park Avenue, and Stropp’s four-year-old daughter, by his second wife, came into the dining room pulling a toy wagon, upon which was a fresh human turd — yes, a turd! — her own, one hoped, and she circled the table three times, and neither Stropp nor his wife did a thing but shake their heads and smile. This required no extended comment, since the Yanks’ treacly indulgence of their children was well known, and Fallow ordered another vodka Southside and toasted the absent Asher Herzfeld, and they ordered drinks all around.

That's from the point of view of Peter Fallow, a British journalist who works in NYC, writing for a trashy tabloid, and who disapproves of "Yanks." It's a running joke that Fallow orders a "vodka Southside" because of Asher Herzfeld, a rich American, who, according to Kindle location 3195, "had always driven the waiters and the bartenders crazy by ordering the noxious American drink, the vodka Southside, which was made with mint, and then complaining that the mint wasn’t fresh."

I'm intrigued by the issue of freshness — first in the mint that the rich American insisted upon and then in the turd that the American child gave a ride in her wagon. The Brits feel superior, but do they care about freshness? I'm looking up recipes for the vodka Southside, and it's quite clear that fresh mint is crucial. And as for the child, well, the turd was fresh too.

The turd was also "human." It's funny to regard the turd as human. I'm inclined to say that "human turd" is jocose and not a proper usage of "human." As for "turd," the word, I was just opining 2 days ago that "turd" is an uglier word than "shit." I hope you'll believe me that it's just by chance that I'm wheeling "turd" around again, so that makes it  fresh turd.

It's interesting to see, so close to "turd," the idea of "treacly indulgence" of children. Not only does the turd circle the table where people are eating, but "treacle" is a food. "Treacle" is syrup, literally, and figuratively, it's "Something sweet or clogging; esp. complimentary laudation, blandishment." The earliest figurative usage, according to the OED, comes from a 1771 novel that I've read, "Humphry Clinker" by Tobias Smollett: "He began to sweeten the natural acidity of his discourse with the treacle of compliment and commendation." It's just by chance that I'm blandishing the name Smollett.



Smollett doesn't look too fresh in that painting, and it was done when he was 45! I don't know what he thought of the Americans. He died the same year "Humphry Clinker" was published, 5 years before the revolution that shook off those censorious Brits.

"They had it all planned out for me... I’d ask, 'When do I sing?' and they’d say, 'Shut up and have a drink.'"

"'You should sit like this and look like that and play the game of bed partners.' You really had to do things that go against your grain for gain. I wouldn’t.... I want to do it my way. I have no regrets."

Said Ethel Ennis — who "eschewed national celebrity for a quieter life in her hometown," Baltimore, where she was "a beloved performer and jazz advocate" — quoted (from 1979) in "Ethel Ennis, Singer Who Walked Away From Fame, Is Dead at 86" (NYT).



AND: Here she is singing a beautiful rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the second inauguration of Richard Nixon.

ALSO: "I've Got a Right to Sing the Blues":

Dianne Feinstein has the guts to stand up to the children. That's not easy!

Who knew Dianne Feinstein could be so savage? pic.twitter.com/BqkYD6iWMe

— Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) February 22, 2019

"Low-level employees were asked to perform duties they described as demeaning, like washing her dishes or other cleaning — a possible violation of Senate ethics rules, according to veterans of the chamber."

I'm afraid I must do a third post on the NYT article "How Amy Klobuchar Treats Her Staff."

I just want to focus on the subject of a U.S. Senator asking low-level staff to do cleaning and the journalism of calling it "a possible violation of Senate ethics rules, according to veterans of the chamber."

Why can't we have better reporting? Who are these unnamed people who make vague statements about ethics rules? Is this good journalistic ethics? What makes someone a "veteran of the chamber"? Could you be more specific?! Did you find out how little cleaning tasks like collecting coffee cups and rinsing them out are handled by other Senators?

It strikes me as unfair to waft "a possible violation of Senate ethics rule" without telling us what the rule is or committing to exposing and casting aspersions on all the Senators who ask staff to clean things.

If low-level staff think this kind of work is demeaning, let's talk about that. If there's no specific rule against assigning them cleaning tasks and there should be, then make a rule. Don't mobilize a fake rule for the purpose of taking down a candidate that you want out of the way.

For a while, I've had a tag "NYT pushes Kamala," where I've been collecting evidence of my hypothesis, and this post gets the tag. Does Kamala Harris have staff who are asked to do things like clear away coffee cups? Please check that for me and apply the same standard of newsworthiness and sneering at her if she does, because I think you're trying to clear away Amy to help Kamala.

And by the way, that's not going to help Kamala. Quit acting like she needs help, and quit pre-destroying her competition. Kamala could fail, and Kamala fans might need Amy.

And, NYT, you'd better make sure none of this coverage is sexist. Why am I hearing about the woman who expects her staff to clean up after her? Is it because the male Senators never do such things or is it because — on some level of consciousness — you expect a woman to do the cleaning?

Horny/hungry, f**kless and losing patience...

In the comments to this morning's post about Robert Kraft's arrest for paying for hand jobs, Meade wrote:

Robert Kraft was horny, f**kless and losing patience.

An aide, joining him on a trip to Florida, had googled and found a high-priced escort service for his boss while hauling their bags through an airport terminal. But once onboard, he delivered the grim news: He had lost his cell phone before reaching the gate, and with it, the contact information for the escort service.

What happened next was typical: Mr. Kraft berated his aide instantly for the slip-up. What happened after that was not: He pulled into a strip mall featuring a day spa massage parlor.

When Mr. Kraft returned to the car, he handed something to his staff member with a directive: Clean it.

That's a riff on something we talked about last night, a New York Times article that began:

Senator Amy Klobuchar was hungry, forkless and losing patience.

An aide, joining her on a trip to South Carolina in 2008, had procured a salad for his boss while hauling their bags through an airport terminal. But once onboard, he delivered the grim news: He had fumbled the plastic eating utensils before reaching the gate, and the crew did not have any forks on such a short flight.

What happened next was typical: Ms. Klobuchar berated her aide instantly for the slip-up. What happened after that was not: She pulled a comb from her bag and began eating the salad with it, according to four people familiar with the episode.

Then she handed the comb to her staff member with a directive: Clean it.

Why is the white album the Beatles album that has sold the most copies?

It's the double album, so it's the most expensive, and yet it's sold 24 million copies, while "Abbey Road" has sold only 12 million. They don't multiply by 2 because it's a double album, I don't think.

The white album (officially called "The Beatles") is by far the highest-selling multiple-disc album, and it's also the fourth highest-selling album of all time. Ahead of it, in addition to "Thriller," are 2 Eagles albums.

My question is, why the white album? It's more of a grab bag of songs. I like it, but I would have thought that as we returned over the years to the buying of singles, the attraction of the album would rest in the more coherent albums, like "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper." The white album was always beset with skippable songs, including the worst Beatles song ("Don't Pass Me By") and an annoying thing that isn't even a song ("Revolution 9").

So what's up? But I don't get the appetite for The Eagles either.

ADDED: Commenters are telling me that each copy of a double album counts as 2 copies sold in the RIAA count. So my question is annihilated, except to the extent that the white album is AS big-selling as "Abbey Road."

"It’s really simple, people: don’t fat shame. You can shame Trump for a million other things. Being fat isn’t a character flaw."

"I hate Trump but why is it OK to fat shame anyone?"/"I am the most ardent human being against Trump, however, as a former very obese person as a young kid, this just isn’t necessary... Attack his policy, his demeanor, his callous nature, the fact that he is empty inside... Please stop."

From "Advocates want critics to stop fat-shaming Trump" (NY Post).

ADDED: Trump is an extremely successful, dominating person, and yet somehow his enemies make me feel that he's a bullied outsider in need of a friend. Stop making the President of the United States into the underdog, you fools! If anyone wonders why I seem to take Trump's side here, it's because you idiots make me feel sorry for him.

"The immediate reaction is born of pure emotion, prompting phrases such as 'Oh my God!' and 'He did what?' to escape your lips without thinking, to cause the breath to catch in your throat and the eyes to pop in your head."

"Friday’s news stops you in your tracks, immediately flooding your mind with more questions than you know can be answered, sending your thoughts into a spiral of tangled emotions. Anger, disgust, disappointment, shock, denial, disdain . . . all of them with the right to course through your veins, even as you await the avalanche of detail that is sure to follow the initial revelations. Sadness, too."

From "Troubling charges against Robert Kraft leave us wondering what to think" — Tara Sullivan is emoting up a storm at The Boston Globe.

In that "spiral of tangled emotions" that have "the right to course through your veins," isn't there something that makes you just want to laugh derisively? This guy had everything. Who has as much?! He had a lot more than Jussie Smollett, and he exposed himself to ruination — not for a fantasy porn star like Stormy Daniels — but for a strip mall hand job? This is stupider than what Smollett did — if he did it — so crudely staging that attack and paying for it with a check — get cash, man — which had Charles Barkley laughing at him on television and modeling the spiraling, tangled emotion called hilarity:



ADDED: Maybe hilarity is an emotion that doesn't have "the right to course through your veins." It is — as I've said — The Era of That's Not Funny. Maybe we feel we don't have the right to laugh anymore. I can see that much of the reaction to the Smollett has been that he himself committed a hate crime — a hate crime against MAGA people — and we must take umbrage and express outrage and keep a stern, grim face. Then, thank God for Charles Barkley for transgressing and inviting us into the emotion we might think doesn't have "the right to course through your veins."

And I mean to laugh at the idea of emotions with rights. People have rights, and you have a right to feel whatever you feel... including ashamed of yourself for feeling something that you disapprove of.

ALSO: Laughing at Kraft for getting a hand job in a strip mall is like laughing at Trump for eating a McDonald's cheeseburger. Why doesn't the billionaire use his money to buy the fancy version of every damned little thing that he wants? Asks the nonbillionaire.

At the Light Gray Café...

... you can stay up all night.

And you can shop at Amazon through the Althouse Portal.

"Accommodations that would seem unusual at another office seem perfectly reasonable to the employees at Auticon."

"At the Culver City office, overhead lights bothered one or two colleagues so much that everyone agreed to work without artificial lights, so that often, by the end of the day, they are all working in pitch darkness, rectangles of soft, bright light from their computers illuminating their faces. Absences, in general, are not encouraged, but they are accepted as a cost of doing business with a population that often experiences depression. Managers adjust, within reason, to their employees’ boundaries, rather than the other way around, such as when employees suffering from gastrointestinal problems — a little-understood but common issue for some people on the spectrum — call in to explain, in great detail, why they won’t be coming in that day.... Some Auticon employees have skills that would likely earn them higher pay were they employed at a big company in the United States. But Auticon invests heavily in their training and offers the kind of bespoke workplace systems that allow for their success...."

From "Open Office/What happens when people who have trouble fitting into a traditional workplace get one designed just for them?" (NYT).

"Senator Amy Klobuchar was hungry, forkless and losing patience.... She pulled a comb from her bag and began eating the salad with it.... Then she handed the comb to her staff member with a directive: Clean it."

She = Amy Klobuchar, as described, based on 4 witnesses, in "How Amy Klobuchar Treats Her Staff" (NYT).

Grossest use of a comb since Paul Wolfowitz....

"Not capable of or liable to sin; exempt from the possibility of sinning or doing wrong."

I'm looking up "impeccable" because I'm reading the statement released by lawyers for Jussie Smollett:

"Mr. Smollett is a young man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence and feels betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing."

The quote in the post title is the OED's definition of that very strong word "impeccable." I wonder how much the lawyers thought about the selection of that adjective and what alternatives were considered. It's so intense and absolute that it's self-defeating. Who is exempt from the possibility of doing wrong?! It seems to shout: We're lying.

If they'd asked me, I'd have suggested "good character." Maybe "fine character."