"I hereby nominate this article for a Pulitzer prize" is the top-rated comment...

... on the WaPo article "People are seeing ‘Cats’ while high out of their minds. These are their stories."

Hundreds of people told The Post their stories about seeing “Cats” while high — some on marijuana, others on psilocybin mushrooms, LSD and other mind-altering substances....

I like when the whole rating system for comments goes sarcastic.

Sunrise type #5.

This morning at 7:31. "Actual" sunrise time: 7:30. Tomorrow, at long last, the sun will rise earlier.

"The defense’s grilling of the alleged victims is likely to create some of the most dramatic moments of the trial."

"Former prosecutors say that cross-examination will be long, painful for the women, and require deftness from [Harvey Weinstein's lawyer Donna] Rotunno, whose natural forcefulness could backfire. 'If your claim is that someone is lying then you’ve got to act like they’re lying,' said Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia law professor and former prosecutor...."

From "Weinstein Heads to Trial 2 Years After Claims Against Him Fueled #MeToo" (NYT). The trial begins today.

"A bit like the AOC endorsement of Bernie..."

Interesting. A bit like the AOC endorsement of Bernie, it comes at a time when Warren was starting to be written off / taken for granted despite not really being too far out of the running. https://t.co/CcMtqAVcdO

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 6, 2020

So busy.

“The reason they are not sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate is that they are so weak and so pathetic.” @LindseyGrahamSC @MariaBartiromo The great Scam continues. To be spending time on this political Hoax at this moment in our history, when I am so busy, is sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2020

It's the Monday after the Christmas-and-New-Year's weeks...

... it's time to get back to your regularly scheduled news events.

That Soleimani killing shook up the regularly scheduled break from the news, but the break provided a space within which to be unpredictable, and I read it in Bloomberg News: "U.S. Killing of Soleimani Leaves Trump 'Totally Unpredictable.'"

That is, I observe, a prediction. That gives Trump the power to be unpredictable by being predictable. If he does the most obvious thing now, it should take people by surprise — if it's actually true that he's totally unpredictable.

The quote at Bloomberg is:

“The Americans are now totally unpredictable,” Gerard Araud, a former French ambassador to the U.S. and the United Nations, said in an interview. “There was no response to Iranian attacks against oil tankers, a U.S. drone and Saudi oil fields, but out of the blue comes this surprising hit on Soleimani. We are depending on the unpredictable reaction of one man.”

Is that bad in war? I can't even tell whether Araud thinks it's bad. I certainly hope that the threat to hit Iranian cultural sites is merely a bluff. At first, I wanted to think he didn't really say that, but here's Maggie Haberman at the NYT:

Aboard Air Force One on his way back from his holiday trip to Florida, Mr. Trump reiterated to reporters the spirit of a Twitter post on Saturday, when he said the United States government had identified 52 sites for retaliation against Iran if there were a response to Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani’s death. Some, he tweeted, were of “cultural” significance....

“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” the president said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

"Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes Jokes, Ranked in Order of Dickishness/From the righteously provocative to the just plain mean."

At Slate.

I don't care enough about movies and TV shows and awards to watch the Golden Globes, but I almost did, just to watch Ricky, and I kind of regret missing it. And I missed it hard, because I was sitting with the remote control within reach when I knew it was on, and I knew I could record it and then just watch the Ricky parts, but I actively held back, because I didn't want to see the Hollywood faces in the audience, phonily howling at jokes (or otherwise making faces, if something crosses whatever line they're able to calculate has been crossed).

But NBC gives us the whole monologue on YouTube, so I have no regrets:



ADDED: The stars object to SO many of the jokes. Now, that's pretty funny. I like the grace with with Martin Scorsese takes the joke at his expense. Scroll to 4:29 to see that segment.

AND: Don Jr. loved it:

OMG🔥🔥🔥 If you watch one thing today watch this. It’s about time someone in Hollywood says is it. RT!!!pic.twitter.com/DhGeMvyWNZ

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 6, 2020

At the Sunday Sunrise Café...

... you might want to continue the conversation here.

The photo was taken looking east at 7:35 — 5 minutes after the "actual" sunrise time.

Bonus pictures from mid-afternoon, showing the glasslike cracked ice along the beach:

"It is impossible to overstate the importance... It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of al-Baghdadi."

"Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria.... [Trump's] reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response.... Iran is in a very precarious economic situation, it is very fragile domestically.... It will be interesting now to see if there is a U.S. diplomatic initiative to reach out to Iran and to say, 'Okay, the next move could be strikes against your oil infrastructure and your forces in your country—where does that end?'... Obviously all sides will suffer if this becomes a wider war, but Iran has to be very worried that—in the state of its economy, the significant popular unrest and demonstrations against the regime—that this is a real threat to the regime in a way that we have not seen prior to this.... Yes, they can respond and they can retaliate, and that can lead to further retaliation—and that it is clear now that the administration is willing to take very substantial action. This is a pretty clarifying moment in that regard.... Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the Iran-Iraq War...."

Said David Petraeus in an interview with Foreign Policy.

"That Iran will retaliate is not in question, analysts say. Not to do so would be a sign of weakness..."

"... that could jeopardize the enormous influence Iran has gained in the region over the past four decades.... 'Iran has to retaliate, and it will be a retaliation to restore the deterrence lost by this assassination,' said [Kamel Wazne, a Beirut-based political analyst]. But he and other analysts also believe Iran also has no appetite for a full-scale war with the United States that would deplete its already precarious finances and leave it heavily outgunned. Iran, analysts say, has to calibrate its response — inflicting enough damage on the United States that it is seen to be avenging Soleimani’s death without precipitating an all-out war. The question is how?... In years gone by, Iranian allies have blown up American embassies and kidnapped American citizens with devastating effect, driving American troops and diplomats out of Lebanon in the 1980s and propelling the ascent of the Iranian-allied Hezbollah movement there.... Since May, Iran has been harassing ships and firing rockets at American troops in Iraq.... [W]hat more can Iran do that 'it has not already done?'... 'Iran cannot go to war in the region. In Iraq their options are becoming very limited for them because any escalation in Iraq exposes them to more attacks by the U.S.,' [said Hanin Ghaddar, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy]. 'In Lebanon it’s going to be difficult because of the financial crisis. They cannot fund a war in Lebanon or anywhere else.'... 'My sense is that we will see an escalation in Iraq,' said Maha Yahya, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center. 'But I don't think the Iranians really want a war with the U.S. I don't think they are interested in an all-out regional conflict.'"

From "Iran has vowed revenge against the U.S. But it seems to be in no hurry" (WaPo).

When you got to the end of what I excerpted, did you look back to the beginning — "That Iran will retaliate is not in question" — and... question?

Does the Washington Post seem to be encouraging Americans to brainstorm about how Iran can hurt us? Whether that was the idea or not, the top-rated comment over there is: "Trump Hotels. Very soft targets, and if they are heavily protected, no one will stay in them. A threat to the hotel chain would work wonders."

Somebody else says: "If Iran really wants to harm America as a whole, they might help Russia hack the 2020 elections to help Trump get a second term. That is frightening, but I doubt they'd do it." Why would Iran want Trump to get a second term? Their brainstorming isn't just evil, it's stupid.

Big Structural Mom Energy.

I'm reading "My dream candidate exists – and her name is Elizabeth Warren/She’s overcome misogyny, billionaires’ wrath, and media smears to get to the front of the race, and she brings a special brand of Big Structural Mom Energy" by Rebecca Solnit (in The Guardian):

What I call Big Structural Mom Energy could also be called radical compassion. It lies in the homey delivery and quality of attention she brings to, for example, the young queer woman in Iowa she encouraged and hugged earlier this month. Warren, who has said more about trans rights than any other candidate, has made her credo clear, over and over: that everyone matters, and matters equally, and that the systems that shape our lives should value, defend and give everyone opportunity equally. She got a lot of attention for her comic answer to the question about what she’d say to someone opposed to marriage equality, but after the laughter was over, she said something she’s said in many forms in her campaign: “To me, that is the heart of it. That was the basis of the faith that I grew up in, and it truly is about the preciousness of each and every life.”

I thought a lot about that term "Big Structural Mom Energy," which Google convinces me Solnit invented. Is there even such a thing as a "structural mom"? I'm picturing a large sculpture — a colossus. Or maybe a high-energy, strict disciplinarian character who's got her kids' schedule packed with enriching activities. Google convinces me that whatever sorts of moms there might be out there, "structural mom" is not the idiom.  But oddly enough, I am finding "structural energy." It comes up on websites offering alternative medicine, notably Rolfing.

Rolf claimed to have found an association between emotions and the soft tissue, writing "although rolfing is not primarily a psychotherapeutic approach to the problems of humans", it does constitute an "approach to the personality through the myofascial collagen components of the physical body". She claimed Rolfing could balance the mental and emotional aspects of subjects, and that "the amazing psychological changes that appeared in Rolfed individuals were completely unexpected."

Get us a President who can do that to the country. Go after the soft tissue and restructure the emotions. Rolf the body politic.

IN THE COMMENTS: Ryan say "Big Structural Mom Energy" is "an obvious play on Big Dick Energy." That's a term I saw fit to write about in June 2018 (because The Guardian — the same place that published Solnit's piece — had an article, "Big dick energy: what is it, who has it and should we really care?/It is a phrase that is ‘a thing’, according to the collective wisdom of the internet – but do you have BDE?").

"Most New York bars seem to be using the same type of structure: plastic sheeting, zippered door, accommodates eight. It can be ordered online..."

"... and costs as little as $800. While the domes look simple, installing them, which requires hours of manual labor involving about 400 pieces, is tough, said Mark Briskin, the general manager of the Park Terrace Hotel, which has two fake igloos on its roof.... 'You are enclosed in this little bubble,' said Hannah Jentz, 28, who recently spent an evening during the holidays there. 'You can see the tree, you can people-watch, but you get to escape from the cold, and you don’t have people bumping into you.' In the first two weeks of the month, City Winery had more than 1,000 reservations for the domes."

From "Inside the Fake Igloo Rooftop Wars/Ahh, winter in New York City" (NYT).

It's worth clicking through to see the photographs. It's pretty obvious that the NYT and the photographer think these contraptions and the decor within are laughably shoddy.

I'm especially amused by the third photograph, which shows an ordinary-looking couple sitting at a table that has a fake-fur tablecloth, which seems rather gross. On the table is a strange wooden contraption that seems to be a little clothesline — complete with clothespins! — for some sort of dark, dried fish or meat. These people can't be escaping from the cold, because the man is only wearing a thin shirt —so thin his smart phone is weighing the pocket down quite unattractively. Everyone in the photograph, including a lady in the background has a glass tipped up into the same position. It's synchronized sipping.

I looked up "igloo" at Amazon to see if a plastic dome would come up — my idea of an igloo is something made of snow — and it did: Garden Dome Igloo - 12 Ft Stylish Conservatory, Play Area, Greenhouse or Gazebo. It looks much more elegant in the photograph there than in the comical pictures at the New York Times. Note: I am not recommending this thing! 55% of the comments at Amazon are 1-star reviews. I'll collect just those comments — here — for the comedy.

Here's a question for these New York "igloo" users: Are you not committing the political sin of cultural appropriation? You are not Inuit:

"When you classify yourself as vegan, you’re now being watched. In my DMs, I’d get all these messages from activists for protests. I’m just not that guy..."

"... I did this for the purpose of eating better," said the food blogger, Reynolde Jordan, quoted in "It’s Called ‘Plant-Based,’ Look It Up/There’s a difference between disavowing all animal byproducts and simply trying to eat less meat" (NYT).

Thomas Colin Campbell, the Cornell University biochemist who claims responsibility for coining the term plant-based [said,] “I wanted to emphasize that my work and ideas were coming totally from science and not any sort of ethical or philosophical consideration”....

I'm giving this my "euphemisms" tag, even though I don't think that's exactly right. I considered "propaganda" and "rhetoric." There are 2 intertwined subjects here. At least 2.

One is that "vegan" feels like it means more than just not eating animal products. To say you're a vegan seems to be adopting an identity that has been defined and is being defined by other people and you don't want all those stereotypes sticking to you.

Another is that you seem to be committing to absolutely no animal products, and maybe all you want to do is to build you diet around plant products and minimize the consumption of meat. Personally, I know I need to eat some meat, but I don't eat very much.

Is "plant-based" a euphemism? I'm thinking yes, in the case of someone who follows a vegan diet but doesn't want to be seen as the stereotype vegan, with all morality baggage. But it's not a euphemism — though it seems like a bit of a misnomer — if what you're trying to say is I actually do eat some meat (and dairy and eggs).

"But the bespectacled Qaani — whose portfolio as deputy included Quds Force operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian republics — boasts few notable military victories."

"Instead, experts say, he is believed to have focused on the organization’s day-to-day administrative affairs.... Arash Azizi, a New York-based writer who is researching a forthcoming book on Iran’s external military operations, said: 'Qaani was presumed to be the heir apparent for a long time. But he’s very bureaucratic — he does not have Soleimani’s charisma. As someone who works in Iran’s national security apparatus, he hasn’t really distinguished himself'....  In 1998, when Taliban forces attacked Iran’s consulate in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif, killing nine diplomats, Qaani was instrumental in dissuading Tehran’s leadership from responding militarily, Azizi said. 'Many people were eager for Iran to take action,' Azizi said. 'It was an act of maturity on Qaani’s part in deciding not do anything rash.... I don’t think that he speaks Arabic, and he doesn’t have the same understanding of the Arab world or of Israel that Soleimani had'...."

From a Washington Post article with a headline that stresses not the difference but the sameness: "Iran’s new Quds Force commander brings continuity to the post held by his slain predecessor."

My excerpt stresses the differences, and I concede that I am hoping things will be better for us and not worse. With that attitude, I liked what I heard from Azizi. But WaPo's headline is supported by quotes from 2 other scholars — "Under Qaani’s leadership, there is likely to be greater continuity than change in the Quds Force" and "I suspect he’ll have little difficulty filling Soleimani’s shoes when it comes to operations and strategy."

ADDED: The question shouldn't be whether this man is or can be the same as Soleimani, but what does it mean that a man like this was chosen to replace Soleimani. Again, I confess to optimism.

What's the point of all this equipment if we don't at least threaten to use it?

The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020

ADDED: This tweet reminds me of another Trump tweet, from just about exactly a year ago: "I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

Replacing the high school gym class with outside-of-school exercise monitored with a fitness tracker.

This is a great idea! I'm reading "Gym class without the gym? With technology, it’s catching on" in The Boston Globe (where I'd gone to check out what Boston people were thinking not about participatory sports, but that spectator sport where "It’s the end for the Patriots, and perhaps, for Tom Brady").

When I read the headline "Gym class without the gym," I thought maybe it was about the school facilities. Is a gym really needed? But no. It's about students who want to fill up their schedules with substantive courses — such as extra languages and music and art — and would like another slot to fill. That was me in high school, forced to take gym, but dropping the highest level math and science courses, because it was important to me to learn Spanish as well as French, to have an art class, and to not to miss the excellent Speech and Theater course. They let me avoid Calculus and Physics, but I had to go down to the gym, put on a gym suit, and get into the crab position to kick a cage ball or wait my turn to hit a softball and scamper to first base.

I would have loved the opportunity to take another substantive course — including the math and science I skipped — and I would have had a much more positive attitude toward athletics if I controlled my physical activities (which, unlike cage ball and basketball, could have become part of my life after high school).

Though a physical education instructor isn’t shouting from the sidelines, teachers do guide assignments by setting goals such as fat burn, cardio, or peak, relying on the technology to be their eyes and ears..... Teenagers who play soccer, swim, or dance all year may satisfy the workout requirements without doing anything extra.....

It’s not clear how many schools are embracing the trend, which comes with some cautions. Technology and the collection of any student data always raises the specter of student privacy concerns. And some worry that students exercising on their own may miss out on important social concepts such as teamwork....

They can teach the social concept of teamwork in the academic courses. Just have more group projects! Nothing like teamwork to make high school sing. Anyway... I don't remember any teamwork in high school gym class. Maybe for the girls who chose to do after-school sports, but not the class. I do remember being lined up and interrogated about whether we had our periods, which was important information in case we were to take a shower, though we were never once told to take a shower, and it was never clear why a girl on her period couldn't take a shower. But that was 50 years ago. As a person who, after 50 years, is still irked over gym class, I love the new after-school Fitbit-monitored alternative.

“They work with their PE instructor to set a fitness goal and then they get their workout however they want to,” [said Nichole Lemmon, the creator of the program, called Launch. "]It really does promote lifelong fitness because it’s about working out the way they want to, not they’re required to do a particular activity in gym. . . . We have a lot of kids — a locker room is their worst nightmare. It’s not where they want to be.”

I'll just gesture at the next step: You could argue that students have a right to substitute outside-of-school monitored exercise for the traditional gym class. It's about physical autonomy and the power to resist demands that you do something with your body that you don't want to do, including taking off your clothes.