6:34 a.m.

In 2 days, I'll reach the one-year mark in my ritual of the sunrise run. I intend to produce my definitive list of the 10 types of sunrises — on the theory that in a year, I've seen all the types. I've given a few numbers already. As I said last May:

I haven't assigned numbers to all of the sunrise types. I want to cover them all and only have 10. I'll figure it out when the year comes full circle on September 9th (my first day of doing the sunrise run).

So far there's 1 & 2 (very cloudy days) and 3 & 4 (very clear days) and 5 (a distinctive Z shape of sunlight). All of the best sunrises are 6-10, but they are harder to classify. I know what 10 -- my favorite -- is, I believe. 6-10 has to do with broken up clouds -- partly cloudy situations that disperse the sunlight.

My favorite type has all-over wispy clouds with the sun showing through. Today's sunrise is unusual, with wispy clouds, almost all over, but a bumper of thick clouds at the bottom, right where they completely obscure the sun. I consider this sunrise quite beautiful but rather subtle. It's a sunrise for the sunrise sophisticates.

"It really does feel like Biden himself is almost the best candidate for this moment because of who he is as a person and his ability to talk about racial justice and racial equality in a way that sounds like a traditional white, suburban guy."

"He doesn’t particularly sound woke, but you also understand that he gets it and that he’s trying to look at these problems in a realistic way."

Said Vaughn Derderian, the chair of the Democratic Party in Oakland County, Michigan, quoted in "Why Biden could still lose the suburbs to Trump/Among local party officials, there’s an undercurrent of uneasiness about how quickly the president shifted the focus of the campaign away from his coronavirus response and toward public safety" (Politico).

Biden said of the public’s response to Trump’s law-and-order posturing last week that “they ain't buying it.” And most Democratic political professionals — and some Republicans – believe that’s probably true at the moment. Frank Luntz, the veteran Republican consultant and pollster, said in an email that Trump “is talking about the right issue, but he's talking the wrong way. Suburban voters want ‘public safety’ even more than law and order. They want ‘safe streets’ rather than ‘dominating the streets.’ His rhetoric is over-caffeinated.”

People always say Trump is "talking the wrong way." He was talking the wrong way in 2016, and then he won. Talking the wrong way is Trump's super power. The question isn't whether people will say Trump is talking the wrong way, but whether, in the end, they'll vote for him, and they voted for him in 2016 when he talked the wrong way, and I assume they'll do it again. Who cares what's "probably true at the moment"?!

"Steve Jobs would not be happy that his wife is wasting money he left her on a failing Radical Left Magazine that is run by a con man (Goldberg) and spews FAKE NEWS & HATE."

Tweeted Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump attacks the sixth-richest woman in the world for her ties to The Atlantic" (CNN).

I only read that because the headline was so odd — "the sixth-richest woman." Is that supposed to make him seem more sexist than calling her Steve Jobs's widow?

"But journalism is not supposed to be grounded in whether something is 'believable' or 'seems like it could be true.'"

"Its core purpose, the only thing that really makes it matter or have worth, is reporting what is true, or at least what evidence reveals. And that function is completely subverted when news outlets claim that they 'confirmed' a previous report when they did nothing more than just talked to the same people who anonymously whispered the same things to them as were whispered to the original outlet. Quite aside from this specific story about whether Trump loves The Troops, conflating the crucial journalistic concept of 'confirmation' with 'hearing the same idle gossip' or 'unproven assertions' is a huge disservice. It is an instrument of propaganda, not reporting. And its use has repeatedly deceived rather than informed the public. Anyone who doubts that should review how it is that MSNBC and CBS both claimed to have 'confirmed' a CNN report which turned out to be ludicrously and laughably false."

Writes Glenn Greenwald in "Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite/Outlets claiming to have 'confirmed' Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term" (The Intercept). The  "ludicrously and laughably false" CNN report was that "during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, Jr. had received a September 4 email with a secret encryption key that gave him advanced access to WikiLeaks’ servers containing the DNC emails."

If Rumormonger tells a story to Newspaper1 and then Rumormonger tells the story to Newspaper2, Newspaper2 can't say that it is confirming the story! It can only confirm that Rumormonger is mongering that story. There's no more confirmation than if Newspaper1 and Newspaper2 were on a conference call with Rumormonger and heard the story simultaneously.

"Thirty years ago one could reply, ‘So what,’ ‘laugh it off,’ ‘talk back,’ or some other cliched response."

"Today that’s impossible. If someone is guilty of hate speech they almost immediately apologize when it’s called to their attention. The social norm against hate speech is pretty firmly established."

Said lawprof Richard Delgado, quoted in "The Deeply Pessimistic Intellectual Roots of Black Lives Matter, the '1619 Project' and Much Else in Woke America" (RCP). Much more at the link. I wanted to highlight Richard Delgado, who was a colleague of mine at the University of Wisconsin back in the days when Donna Shalala was chancellor.

"The most effective way to combat racial discrimination..."

The most effective way to combat racial discrimination is to continually remind white people that they are inhuman demons who are beyond redemption. pic.twitter.com/WclBps4IKz

— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) September 7, 2020

Meanwhile, at the New York Times, "More Than Ever, Trump Casts Himself as the Defender of White America" and the basis for that assertion is this:

Trump Orders Purge of ‘Critical Race Theory‘ from Federal Agencies https://t.co/ygXcTXRHsQ via @BreitbartNews This is a sickness that cannot be allowed to continue. Please report any sightings so we can quickly extinguish!

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

At the Sunrise Café...

... you can write about whatever you want.

A NYT juxtaposition.

On the front page right now:

The Hitler image is part of a teaser to "10 New Books We Recommend This Week."

Here's the article on Jenna Bush Hager's new book, "Everything Beautiful in Its Time." I've got to admit, I think the sentiment in the title is utter bullshit, and I myself would be tempted to put a photograph of Hitler next to it to make it look especially stupid, so I'm just pointing out that the NYT did this.

Is it pro-science when Joan Baez paints "TRUST FAUCI"? It's art, by a person presenting artist credentials, and it's telling you to trust an authority figure.

Dr. Fauci continues to be disrespected & marginalized by the administration's lack of commitment to science. My painting offers the message to TRUST FAUCI. We can put our faith in science & truth, not lies, smoke screens & snake oil. #TRUSTFAUCI #TRUTHMATTERS #SCIENCEMATTERS pic.twitter.com/candsYYDPt

— Joan Baez (@joancbaez) September 4, 2020

Dancing in the streets.

Graphic: Another angle of the person being set on fire by a Molotov cocktail thrown by antifa militants in SE Portland. Rioters try to help but don’t do much. Cops are the ones who rush in & put out the flames. Video by @BGOnTheScene. #PortlandRiots pic.twitter.com/9gNFo73Lyc

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 6, 2020

"This girl should be the poster child for white privilege... I wonder how her rich parents feel about their daughter. How would they feel if they graffitied their townhouse?"

Said a cop quoted in "Wealthy NYC woman busted in BLM rampage" about the arrest of "Clara Kraebber, 20... one of eight people arrested Friday night after a roiling, three-hour rampage... from Foley Square up to 24th Street.... 'Every city, every town, burn the precinct to the ground!' the group chanted as it moved up Lafayette Street while busting the plate glass facades of banks, Starbucks and Duane-Reades."

It's not surprising that privileged young white women would get caught up in Black Lives Matter. It's a classic theme. Haven't you read "American Pastoral"? Don't you remember Patty Hearst? Haven't you looked at the photos of who's out rampaging on the streets this year?

Here's my teaser line for a movie about a young white woman in the BLM protests of 2020: Sometimes protesting against white privilege is the most white-privileged thing you can do.

I couldn't take my eyes off Bill. What's he thinking?!

What do you think the bubble above Bill Clinton's head says right now? https://t.co/p3efFzKAFK

— Sharyl Attkisson🕵️‍♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) September 5, 2020

"My heart made that sound when the six-fingered man killed my father. Every 'Princess Bride' fan who wants to see that perfect movie preserved from Hollywood politics makes it now."

Tweeted Ted Cruz, quoted in "'The Princess Bride' Cast Reunites for Wisconsin Democratic Party Fundraiser" (Variety).

The cast members participating in this unusual fundraisers are Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, Carol Kane, Chris Sarandon, Mandy Patinkin, Wallace Shawn, and Billy Crystal. The director Rob Reiner is also participating.

Here's the IMDB list of the whole cast of the 1987, in case you want to figure out who's not going along with this event. Peter Falk and Andre the Giant are no longer among the living. But Christopher Guest and Fred Savage are not in the group. All the other non-participants in the credited cast are English actors.

Actually, Christopher Guest, though born in New York City, "holds a hereditary British peerage as the 5th Baron Haden-Guest." He would be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, but the membership was reformed in 1999. He's expressed interest in seeking election to the House of Lords. So I can see why he'd want to stay out of American politics.

As for Fred Savage, this might have something to do with his nonparticipation.

"Boris Johnson privately told US diplomats that Donald Trump was 'making America great again'..."

"... according to a cache of official notes taken during high-level UK-US meetings whose details have leaked to The Telegraph. The Prime Minister is quoted telling the US ambassador to Britain in August 2017, when he was foreign secretary, that Mr Trump was doing 'fantastic stuff' on foreign policy issues like China, Syria and North Korea. Other records show Mr Johnson claimed the US president was becoming 'increasingly popular' in Britain in 2017 and spoke warmly about how under his leadership America was 'back and engaged in the world.'"

The Telegraph reports.

"Trump hired a 'Faux-Bama' to participate in a video in which Trump 'ritualistically belittled the first black president and then fired him.'"

"[Michael] Cohen's book, 'Disloyal: A Memoir,' doesn't name the man who was allegedly hired to play Obama or provide a specific date for the incident, but it does include a photograph of Trump sitting behind a desk, facing a Black man wearing a suit with an American flag pin affixed to the lapel. On Trump's desk are two books, one displaying Obama's name in large letters."

CNN reports.

How weird is this? It's similar to debate preparation, where someone is brought in to play the role of the candidate's opponent, so he can sharpen his arguments and work on an effective self-presentation. Trump, of course, would never have to face Obama in a debate, but he was running against a continuation of the Obama administration, and he did need to practice arguing against Obama, even though he didn't need to figure out how to be in the room with him and counter his weighty presence. The exercise of telling him off to his face might have been conceived of as an effective way to build Trump's style and confidence. Put Trump in his familiar milieu as a business boss with Obama cut down to the size of a subordinate whom Trump could fire. Do the theater of "The Apprentice." It's a way to practice.

It could also have been an idea for an ad. It might have worked. But it wasn't used, perhaps because it didn't build the belief that Trump has analyzed Obama's work and seen why we shouldn't want the same thing anymore. Cohen isn't a credible witness, but if we take his characterization seriously, once videoed, the scene looked like Trump had "ritualistically belittled" Obama, and it would have been quite sensible to predict that the ad would stimulate a protectiveness toward Obama. Trump certainly managed to criticize Obama successfully, but we never had a picture of him humiliating the man personally. If that was to be an ad, it was scrapped, and that was a sensible enough decision, in retrospect, because Trump won the election.

And now we have Cohen, trying to make some money and to hurt his former client, with this book "Disloyal." With that title, the publisher flaunts Cohen's contemptibility — that's the best move, with this author nobody likes. So the Trump-hating media can rifle through the book and what does it find? CNN leads with this imitation Obama story. That's the worst thing in the book? It's new and it's concrete... and it doesn't rest entirely on Cohen's credibility, because there's a photograph:



Other cherry-picking in the CNN article:

Anita Hill says she's "willing to evolve myself" and "work with" Joe Biden.

"One of the impacts of 1991 was my desire not to really work with the government in any way... I always said, I think I can be more effective as an outsider, as opposed to an insider. And now, I'm willing to evolve myself, to work for change inside."

That's from "Anita Hill vows to vote for Joe Biden and work with him on gender issues" at CNN. She did an interview with CNN. Anita Hill is the person who most prominently brought sexual harassment in the workplace to the forefront of American culture, and she did this in the Senate Judiciary Committee when it was chaired by Joe Biden.



I'm not going to fault her for offering to work on the inside, after 3 decades devoted to her "outsider" approach, but I will fault CNN if it did not, in the course of its interview, bring up the charges of sexual harassment that have been made against Biden. Is the name Tara Reade in the transcript?

"Notwithstanding all of his limitations in the past, and the mistakes that he made in the past, notwithstanding those -- at this point, between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, I think Joe Biden is the person who should be elected in November," Hill told CNN's Gloria Borger. But it's not just because he's running against Donald Trump, she adds. "Its more about the survivors of gender violence. That's really what it's about."

All his limitations and mistakes in his past? Is that including what Tara Reade says he did or does Anita Hill think Reade lacks credibility? Did Anita Hill hold back from supporting Bill Clinton, given all the allegations against him? It was disheartening, after Hill's Judiciary Committee testimony in 1991, to see so many purported feminists put Democratic Party power above the cause, and I hear echoes of that decision in Hill's "at this point, between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, I think Joe Biden is the person who should be elected."

Biden called her, seeking her support, all the way back in April 2019. Her support is strategically useful to him. She said at the time that he failed to apologize:

"An apology, to be real and sincere, has to take responsibility for harm," Hill told CNN. That's not what she heard when she spoke to him at the time. She wanted to hear him acknowledge the harm done to victims of sexual harassment. "He didn't take responsibility. He didn't hold himself accountable in any way, except that he was sorry that I felt I wasn't treated fairly. He didn't take ownership of his own role as chair of the committee." She called the conversation "unsatisfying." After that call, Biden told ABC's Good Morning America that he acknowledged his role as chairman in her treatment.

"As the committee chairman, I take responsibility that she did not get treated well. I take responsibility for that," Biden told ABC in April 2019. Hill was listening. She now says she believes he's evolved.

He's "evolved" and she's "willing to evolve" herself. Whatever that means. Ostensibly, it means I will rearrange myself into what is politically effective.

Anyway, I'm not surprised in the slightest to find nothing about Tara Reade and the harassment allegations against Biden in this CNN interview with Anita Hill. Once again, women are expected to support men, and the interests of women are deferred because a man must advance. Alternatively, Hill really wants a job for herself within the Biden administration, and it is a case of a woman doing what she needs to do to advance her career.