"An award given in the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been abruptly canceled after the family of the late Supreme Court justice and others objected..."

"... that this year’s slate of recipients do not reflect her values. The Dwight D. Opperman Foundation last week announced that it would award the prize to Elon Musk, Martha Stewart, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Milken and Sylvester Stallone. Critics couldn’t help but observe that these 'five iconic individuals' — as the awards news release described them — included among them convicted felons and conservative billionaires who own right-wing media enterprises...."

WaPo reports.

What a mess! How does something like that happen?

Galas built around impressively named awards are a stalwart of the Washington elite social scene — and a way to entice celebrity honorees to rub elbows with politicians and business leaders over $1,000-a-head plates of prime rib....

Ugh. Let them stew in their own au juices.  

The promotional panopticon is forcing you to confront your preconceptions about exactly what empowerment means.

I encountered this sentence written by Vanessa Friedman, in "Kristen Stewart Uses Naked Dressing to Make a Point/Her press tour for 'Love Lies Bleeding' was something to see" (NYT):

"Ms. Stewart and her stylist, Tara Swennen, have taken the film’s carnality and covert politics and translated them for the promotional panopticon, forcing anybody watching to confront their own preconceptions about women’s bodies, their sexuality and exactly what empowerment means, while at the same time undermining the whole circus of branded celebrity dressing."

Sunrise — 7:05, 7:21.

At 1 minute after sunrise time, a thick bank of clouds blocked the sun...

16 minutes later, the sun made it over those thick clouds and into a distinctive cross shape...

"If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with, no more appeasement."

Said Ronald Reagan, in 1970, talking about dealing with unrest on college campuses, quoted at the time in "Ronald Reagan Is Giving ‘Em Heck" (NYT)(free access link).

Later he said the remark was a "figure of speech" and that anyone who took it seriously was "neurotic." Within a few days, four students were shot at Kent State.

I ran across that because I'd noticed that the NYT was spelling "bloodbath" as 2 words — "Trump defends his warning of a ‘blood bath for the country" — in its current reporting. I had 2 theories about why:

1. A compound word takes a long time to become standard. When we see "bloodbath" as one word, it feels more like a stock term. Trite. By spacing it out as 2 words, you might get people to think that Trump put it together in his own fervid brain. But maybe...

2. The NYT has a style guide, and it decided long ago that "blood bath" was the correct configuration, and people at the Times are meticulous about writing it the same way every time.

To narrow my 2 ideas about twoness and oneness down to one, I searched the NYT archive for the 1-word form. I found many examples of "bloodbath," including Reagan's crazy idea of sticking it to the students. There was also Russell Baker making jokes about Richard Nixon's "bloodbath" theory of Vietnam (in 1970, deploying a fictional character he called "Dandy"):

"Donald Trump told an appellate court here Monday that he can’t obtain a bond for the full amount of the civil fraud judgment against him — more than $450 million, including interest..."

"... raising the possibility that the state attorney general’s office could begin to seize his assets unless the court agrees to halt the judgment while the former president appeals the verdict. Trump’s lawyers said in a court filing that 'ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is a 'practical impossibility,"' adding that those efforts 'have included approaching about 30 surety companies through 4 separate brokers.'...  Late last month, an appeals court judge denied Trump’s request to pause the enforcement of the judgment for widespread business fraud. A full panel of the New York appeals court — known as the First Department of the Appellate Division — is now considering whether to halt the judgment while Trump pursues his appeal."

Politico reports.

ADDED: "Elon Musk says Trump ‘came by’ while he was eating breakfast, did not ask for money" (CNBC).

Bloodbath.

This is the third post of the morning and, like the previous two, it has a title consisting of one word that's in the news this morning. I can see from the comments in those other posts and in last night's open thread, that people especially want to talk about "bloodbath."

I feel so pushed to talk about "bloodbath" this morning that I balk at churning out a "bloodbath" post. You already know what you want to say. Is it my job to expound on "bloodbath" as it relates to the free-speaking raconteur Donald Trump and his gasping, raging antagonists?

I'll just feed your bloodbathlust with my favorite "bloodbath" quotations from the OED:

Jawbone.

"One day Sampson was walking alone/He looked down on the ground and he saw an old jawbone/He lifted up that jawbone and he swung it over his head/And when he got to moving ten thousand was dead" — Peter, Paul & Mary.

"Oh, Jawbone, when did you first go wrong? Oh, Jawbone, where is it you belong?" — The Band.

From "Moral Suasion" (Wikipedia):

"Jawboning"... is the use of authority to persuade various entities to act in certain ways, which is sometimes underpinned by the implicit threat of future government regulation. In the United States, during the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, officials tried to deal with the mounting inflationary pressures by direct government influence or jawboning.... 

From an amicus brief in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, one of 2 free-speech cases up for oral argument in the Supreme Court today:

Bully.

I'm reading "White House’s Efforts to Combat Misinformation Face Supreme Court Test/The justices must distinguish between persuading social media sites to take down posts, which is permitted, and coercing them, which violates the First Amendment."

This is Adam Liptak's piece in the NYT about the case that's up for oral argument in the Supreme Court.

[A 5th Circuit panel] said the [Biden administration] officials had become excessively entangled with the platforms or used threats to spur them to act.... [The administration argues] that the government was entitled to express its views and to try to persuade others to take action.

“A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the office’s bully pulpit to seek to persuade Americans — and American companies — to act in ways that the president believes would advance the public interest,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote.

In response, lawyers for the states wrote that the administration had violated the First Amendment. “The bully pulpit,” they wrote, “is not a pulpit to bully.”

As we await today's argument, let's take a moment to consider what the "bully" in "bully pulpit" means. In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt exclaimed: "I suppose my critics will call that preaching, but I have got such a bully pulpit!" First, clearly, he was using "bully" — as he often did — to mean very good or excellent. And he used the word "pulpit," because he knew he was preaching, that is, proclaiming righteous opinions in public.

Pressuring people behind the scenes is not preaching. You're not in a metaphorical pulpit. You're in the metaphorical backroom. And you're not proclaiming righteous opinions, you're exerting power, intimidating people. It's not "bully" in the sense of excellent.

The OED entry for "bully pulpit" is clear that "bully pulpit" originates with Theodore Roosevelt. It explained "his personal view of the presidency." It is — as the OED puts it — "A public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with the opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any issue." 

We're also told: "In later use sometimes understood as showing bully n.1 II.3a." That meaning of "bully" is:

Originally: a man given to or characterized by riotous, thuggish, and threatening behaviour; one who behaves in a blustering, swaggering, and aggressive manner. Now: a person who habitually seeks to harm, coerce, or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable; a person who engages in bullying.

If "bully pulpit" is sometimes understood that way, it's risky to argue "A central dimension of presidential power is the use of the office’s bully pulpit...."

The riposte was predictable: "The bully pulpit is not a pulpit to bully."

I want to add that what is said behind the scenes is not from the pulpit at all. A pulpit is an elevated and conspicuous platform. One thing about social media posts is that they are out there, in public, and perfectly conspicuous. If the President (or the shadowy people behind him) want to use the"central dimension of presidential power" that is the "bully pulpit," let them step up onto a conspicuous platform and proclaim opinions they intend us to find righteous.

In this case, the opinion that was conveyed behind the scenes was that social media platforms ought to take down posts on various political topics — coronavirus vaccines, claims of election fraud, and Hunter Biden’s laptop — that people wanted to debate. If it's pulpit-worthy, express that opinion outright and clearly to all of us. Don't go behind our back and intimidate the social media giants upon whom we, the little people, depend to slightly amplify our tiny voices.

Sunrise — 6:58.

"A forced sale of TikTok within 180 days, as House-passed legislation requires, would be one of the thorniest and most complicated transactions..."

"... in corporate history, posing financial, technical and geopolitical challenges that experts said could render a sale impractical and increase the likelihood the app will be banned nationwide.... A sale would require severing a company worth potentially $150 billion from its technical backbone while being the subject of legal challenges and resistance from China, which has pledged to block any deal...."

From "House TikTok bill gives ByteDance 6 months to sell. That’s unlikely. A deal probably would be too complicated and costly for such a short time frame, experts say. Opponents of the bill say that means the app would probably be banned under the legislation" (WaPo).

In short, realistically, it's a ban.

"[T]hey agreed on basically everything, including that new human life is not a gift but a needless perpetuation of suffering."

"Babies grow up to be adults, and adulthood contains loneliness, rejection, drudgery, hopelessness, regret, grief, and terror. Even grade school contains that much. Why put someone through that, Alex and Dietz agreed, when a child could just as well never have known existence at all? The unborn do not appear to be moaning at us from the void, petitioning to be let into life. This idea—that having children is unethical—has come to be known as antinatalism...."

Writes Elizabeth Barber in "The Case Against Children/Among the antinatalists" (Harper's). The author wants a baby.

Lots of stories of antinatalists at the link, but what I want to quote is some of the philosophical material:

It's sad to see the NYT framing the fight for freedom of speech as a perverse force.

I'm reading "How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation/Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online" (NYT)(free access link).

Academic researchers wrestled with how to strengthen efforts to monitor false posts. Mr. Trump and his allies embarked instead on a counteroffensive, a coordinated effort to block what they viewed as a dangerous effort to censor conservatives....

Waged in the courts, in Congress and in the seething precincts of the internet, that effort has eviscerated attempts to shield elections from disinformation in the social media era.

It tapped into — and then, critics say, twisted — the fierce debate over free speech and the government’s role in policing content.... Facing legal and political blowback, the Biden administration has largely abandoned moves that might be construed as stifling political speech.... Social media platforms now provide fewer checks against the intentional spread of lies about elections....

Much more at the link, including discussion of the case to be argued tomorrow in the Supreme Court (which "accuses federal officials of colluding with or coercing the platforms to censor content critical of the government"). 

"The 150g tins — enough for a single meal — will cost roughly £1 and contain a chicken dish created without harming a single animal."

"Rather than slaughtering chickens, Meatly’s scientists extract a sample of cells from a chicken’s egg, which are replicated and grown in vats in a process similar to making beer or yoghurt.... Meatly, which is also planning a product for dogs, hopes to appeal to animal lovers’ environmental conscience, with a growing trend for pet owners to feed their animals a vegan diet.... [Owen Ensor, the founder of Meatly], 35, who is vegan, has tasted his firm’s product. 'It tastes like chicken,' he said.... [H]e does not need to worry about texture, which bothers humans much more than animals. 'Pets care what food smells like and they care what it tastes like, and if it has the right nutrients,' he said. 'But they don’t particularly care what it looks like or if it has the right kind of texture.'... [R]eplicating the correct texture from a vat of cells is tricky."

From "Britain’s first lab-grown meat: it’s for cats/Tinned chicken cultivated from cells taken from an egg will be marketed to owners who want to supply a normal diet without the guilt. Its vegan creator explains" (London Times).

With cats in the picture, I'm inclined to read "lab-grown" to involve Labrador retrievers.

How does Ensor know cats don't care about texture? But it's not as though traditional cat food is providing the texture I presume cats love (which is the texture of a freshly killed mouse).

By the way, as a human being with a greatly diminished sense of smell (AKA taste), I am overwhelmingly concerned with the texture of food. Food texture matters!

"A long time ago, I got an email from a troll saying he could draw better than me with his penis."

"The unfortunate effect of these consolidations is that whether or not you can draw well with it, you must be in possession of one."

Said Hilary Price, creator of the comic strip “Rhymes With Orange,” quoted in "Female artists are disappearing from print comics at chain newspapers/Creators are thriving in other mediums. Are print comic strips nearing the end?" (WaPo).

Something I learned from the top-rated comment over there: The Washington Post website offers lots of comic strips, but they're so hard to see: "With an online subscription to WaPo, you have to scroll allllll the way down to see the link for the comics. Then you click each comic title, and there are dozens, to see each individual daily strip." Here's that link.

It's been so long since I've followed any comic strips, I don't know what to click on. I'm sort of (but not really) surprised to see many names that I read when I was a child: Andy Capp, Blondie, Beetle Bailey, Hi and Lois, Prince Valiant, Mark Trail, Mary Worth. With a webpage, I have the sense not to click on any of them, but if I had a real newspaper with "funny pages," I might read them because they were there.

"'I told them about my inside-out approach to dressing,' she said. She asked each of the women to identify three words..."

"... that describe who they are right now. Or, alternatively: who they might want to be and what they might want people to see when they look at you. Then, when they would go shopping — or go through their closet at home — they would have this list on hand. With each article of clothing they picked up, they had to consider, 'Does this say these three things about me?'... 'The women all came back and were like: "I never had a style. I feel like I have a style, I have a way to know how to get clothes now."' As for the words Slater chose to identify herself at this moment: writer, community worker, grandmother. 'When I wear a denim shirt and overalls, I am all those people,' she said...."

From "Your clothes no longer serve you. Now what? Lyn Slater, the 70-year-old former fashion influencer and author of ‘How to Be Old,’ offers lessons on what to wear for your next act in life" (WaPo).

"I did everything by the book the whole time. They changed the rules, and I should be grandfathered in. I shouldn’t have to abide by them."

Said Tony Cavallaro, quoted in "Authorities Seize Alligator Being Held Illegally in Home Near Buffalo/The alligator, Albert Edward, had been with his owner for 34 years" (NYT).

He was 11 feet long, 750 pounds heavy and 34 years old, and until this week, he lived in a pool house attached to his owner’s home in Hamburg, N.Y., about 13 miles south of Buffalo.

The [New York State Department of Environmental Conservation] said that Albert’s owner, Tony Cavallaro, had a license for the alligator, but it expired in 2021. In an interview, Mr. Cavallaro, 64, said that while visitors to his home did sometimes take pictures with Albert, they never swam with him or rode him. Instead, they would briefly get in the water for a quick photo with the animal, often when he was sleeping, Mr. Cavallaro said.

Cavallaro bought Albert as a newborn and believes "the poor thing loves me."

I'm interested in the law here, the always enticing notion that the law doesn't apply to you. Cavallaro also seems to believe that the law of nature — the dangerousness of alligators — does not apply to Albert.

But what's missing from this article is any mention of the comic strip that was once central to our culture: Pogo. There's an alligator named Albert, and you don't cite Pogo?

ADDED: The Wikipedia article linked above describes Albert Alligator as "An exuberant, dimwitted, irascible, and egotistical alligator."