"Squiffy."

I learned a new word reading "I love camping and have done for 40 years — these are my best tips" (London Times):

1. Put the tent up as soon as you arrive

The biggest dilemma you face is not where to pitch the tent, but whether to crack your first beer before you do. I camp most often with a group of friends, and the temptation to leave the practicalities for later and throw ourselves down on a rug for a few drinks and a chinwag is a powerful one. On no account give in to this urge. As anyone who has tried to follow small-print Decathlon instructions in the dark while squiffy can confirm, it is always an error. Remembering which poles go in which slots first is hard at the best of times, so delay the fun until you are fully erect, so to speak.

That's written by a woman, by the way, Gemma Bowes. I don't think a male would indulge in such low humor, but I'm leaving it in my excerpt, having copied it and encountered it after deciding I wanted to blog because of "squiffy." I don't want to seem prudish, so I'll just say I think that kind of double entendre has gone out of style.

Anyway, let's talk about "squiffy" — meaning "drunk." It is in the OED, with the oldest use from a letter written around 1855: "Curious enough there is a Lady Erskine, wife of Lord E, her husband's eldest brother living at Bollington, who tipples & ‘gets squiffy’ just like this Mrs E." 

"At the end of last week, the Democratic Party sent an email to members and supporters, asking them to chip in $30 each for its election fighting fund. The email was dressed up as a personal appeal from Kamala Harris...."

"Harris was so badly defeated by President Trump.... that the party’s power brokers might have thought better than using her to front their bid for campaign cash. Then again, those party bosses have also seen the polling that shows Harris, at least for now, is the overwhelming favourite among the party’s grassroots to be the presidential candidate in 2028."

I'm reading "The early frontrunner for the 2028 election? Kamala Harris/The former vice-president may run for governor of California. Or…" (London Times).

I laughed at this line "At 60, she is still young enough to have another run at high office...." Another? Like there's only one more chance for her to threaten us with a presidential candidacy — in 2028? She's only 60. She can go at least 4 more times. She can be there in 2028, 2032, 2036, and 2040! Imagine the 80-year-old Kamala Harris, well-seasoned, sharp as a tack.

Perhaps the Democratic Party must show her if it's going to use any individual person on this kind of fundraising email. Not to show her — when she's the party's most recent nominee — could be read as disrespectful. Ironically, that's the same motivation that got her the nomination last time and that led to dismal defeat. But there's no choice. They're boxed in. This is the corner into which they have painted themselves.

I'm making a new tag. 

Speaking of dolls, whatever happened to "Creatable World" dolls?

Dolls came up in the previous post when a NYT author located Trump's "level of aesthetic consideration" to that which a child gives "her doll’s face before covering it in nail polish."

That took me down the rathole that is the "dolls" tag in my archive, and I was surprised to encounter this 2019 post: "That’s why I applaud Mattel’s Creatable World, a new collection of gender-neutral dolls, which allow kids to customize their Barbie and Ken in ways they never could before."

That's not me applauding Creatable World. I was quoting something. I can't think of a time when I applauded a toy, and, though I like the idea of children creating little imaginary worlds with their toys, I'm wary of Big Toy's packaging of a particular world to capture the creative energy of the child. Was Creatable World — i.e., gender-neutral world — offered as the antidote to the excessive genderizing of Barbie?

But what happened to Creatable World? I don't think Mattel ever announced that it was withdrawing the product. How much of a fiasco was it?

Did kids just not like it? Did the adults who liked that sort of thing simply fail to have children?

Who even remembers Creatable World? It surprised me to run across it this morning. Is it in the junkpile of things people like to forget ever happened? Have we created a world in which Creatable World never existed?

"Lately the American president has been spending quite a bit of time redecorating the Oval Office. The results can only be called a gilded rococo hellscape."

I'm reading "All Hail Our Rococo President!" —  "an installment of Visual Studies, a series that explores how images move through and shape culture" — by Emily Keegin, in The New York Times. That's a free-access link.

There is a parade of golden objects that march across the mantel, relegating the traditional Swedish ivy to a greenhouse. Gilded Rococo wall appliqués, nearly identical to the ones at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, are stuck to the fireplace and office walls with the same level of aesthetic consideration a child gives her doll’s face before covering it in nail polish....

Lots of photos, analysis, and historical background, so go to the free link. I'll just quote one more thing:

Right before the 2016 election, Fran Lebowitz called Mr. Trump “a poor person’s idea of a rich person.” On the campaign trail, he didn’t look or sound like the rest of the new American billionaires. He wasn’t polished or smooth. His appearance was shoddy, strange, lacking all polish. And all that gold in his house? Well, yes, it looked fake. It was Rococo. He was a normal guy self-consciously performing wealth, something Americans had been doing for the previous 20 years. Not to mention the past 240....

Would America be less of a hellscape if it were polished and smooth? 

Odd that we got that metaphor out of nowhere — the little girl covering her doll's face in nail polish — and then the word "polish" became the essence of the way educated, intelligent people "perform wealth": "He wasn’t polished or smooth." And then the author doubled down about polish: "His appearance was shoddy, strange, lacking all polish."

Sunrise — 5:26.

Talk about whatever you like in the comments. And please support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.

"I was bickering, or rather joking, with my wife. It's nothing."

Said Emmanuel Macron, quoted in "The giveaway sign that Macron was 'furious' with wife Brigitte for viral push in face... as he tries to brush it off as 'joking around'" (Daily Mail).

I'm sure you've seen the video:

French President Emmanuel Macron responds after he apparently got assaulted in the face by his wife Brigitte while stepping off of a plane in Vietnam.

Macron was seen getting shoved in the face before getting off the plane as if nothing happened.

Macron has since responded to… pic.twitter.com/YeEAwdLcxF

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) May 26, 2025

My favorite part is his "Oh, hi" gesture, when he sees that the face push got caught on camera. And that you only see Brigitte's hand, not the rest of her — in the manner of Soupy Sales and White Fang:

ADDED: Here's a different angle:

"I spend a lot of my time saucer-eyed with horror at the rapid degeneration of this country, agog at the terrifying power amassed by Silicon Valley big shots who sound like stoned Bond villains."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, pushing this new HBO show "Mountainhead," in "From the Creator of ‘Succession,’ a Delicious Satire of the Tech Right" (NYT).

No one, I suspect, can fully process the cavalcade of absurdities and atrocities that make up each day’s news cycle. But art can help; it’s not fun to live in a dawning age of technofeudalism, but it is satisfying to see it channeled into comedy.

I liked "Succession" and will give this show a try, but the trailer did not appeal to me. Was that music needed to mask the deficiencies of the script and the acting? 

"I hope you rich folks don't mind slumming it in the humble abode of the poorest billionaire in the gang" — that's the first line in the trailer! I can't believe present-day billionaires would talk like that. It sounds like the way a high-school student in the 1960s would write dialogue for a rich guy. Remember when any time a door was opened to reveal the innards of a mansion, some character would say "Welcome to my humble abode"?

I don't mind unrealistic dialogue if it's brilliant somehow — comically, tragically — but that's just so embarrassingly dumb. I don't get it. "Succession" was great. But I see this show was written and filmed very quickly:

"Scholars who have studied the earlier age of electric vehicles see parallels in their demise in the early decades of the 1900s..."

"...  and the attacks they are facing now. In both eras, electric cars struggled to gain acceptance in the marketplace and were undermined by politics. A big knock against them was they had to be charged and ultimately were considered less convenient than vehicles with internal combustion engines.... Charging and access to fuel were also concerns a century earlier.... They also had to overcome gender stereotypes. Their benefits like quiet, smooth operation were considered by some men to be too feminine, and, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, many models like the Baker Electric were explicitly marketed only to women.... In the fall of 2022, Representative Majorie Taylor Greene [said].... 'There’s nothing more American than the roar of a V-8 engine under the hood of a Ford Mustang or Chevy Camaro, an incredible feel of all that horsepower.' But Democrats, she said, 'want to emasculate the way we drive.'... 'Musk has done everything he could to try to make a Tesla a manly vehicle,' said Virginia Scharff, ... author of... 'Taking the Wheel: Women and the Coming of the Motor Age.'... But, Ms. Scharff added, Mr. Musk may have gone too far... 'Tesla is so associated with a kind of toxic masculinity now...'..."

From "Electric Vehicles Died a Century Ago. Could That Happen Again? Battery-operated vehicles were a mainstay more than a hundred years ago, but only a few still exist — one happens to be in Jay Leno’s garage" (NYT).

Here's Jay with his Baker:

Here's a charming 1910 ad — "Daddy — Get Me a Baker":

She's very feminine but does seem to know about "the business underneath," the "shaft drive."

First, he just exclaims "HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!" but then he thinks again, and by "thinks again," I don't mean he questioned whether "HAPPY" is the right word.

I mean he decided it would be better to say "HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM....":

I especially like the all caps and the "21,000,000 MILLION." That's 21 trillion.

"I think there was a feeling — like, a lot of members of the Democratic Party that were seeing this or saw moments um of him seeming out of it — um that going public was not going to change [Biden's] mind."

"It was only going to help Donald Trump, um, and I think that's how a lot of them rationalized it. Now whether or not history will judge them, you know, as being right for doing that, um, you know, we will see, but this is also part of the reason why the White House was shielding him from as many people as possible including Cabinet secretaries because sometimes, you know, you see him once maybe it's just a bad day you can just say, like, you know, maybe I just had one bad meeting. You're not really sure..."

Said Alex Thompson, co-author of "Original Sin," on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday.

The interviewer, Shannon Bream, quotes from the book (on page 85): "[A longtime Biden aide said] 'He just had to win, and then he could disappear for four years — he'd only have to show proof of life every once in a while. His aides could pick up the slack." She asks: "Who would have been running the White House in a second Biden term?"

Thompson responds: "Well, this person went on to say that when you're voting for a President you're voting for the aides, uh, around him. But these aides were not even Senate-confirmed aides. These are White House aides. These were unelected people. And one of the things that really I think comes out in our reporting here is that if you believe — and I think a lot of these people do sincerely believe — that Donald Trump was and is an existential threat to democracy you can rationalize anything including sometimes doing undemocratic things, which, I think, is what this person is talking about."

It's like fighting fire with fire — fighting the destruction of the democracy with the destruction of democracy. You had to destroy the village to save it. Noted. 

"In a lot of ways, I was withdrawing from mainstream society. I was trying to drop back about two centuries to become an eighteenth-century man..."

"... who relied on hunting and fishing for his livelihood. But I was living in the twentieth century, and everything was constantly changing around me.... I’ve always believed that if we did what was morally and ethically right, while continuing to steadfastly believe in what we were doing, we’d end up okay in the end.... Now, I’m not a man of great intellectual depth, but it sounds to me like God Almighty has said we can pretty much rack and stack anything that swims, flies, or walks, which I consider orders from headquarters.... After studying several political parties to find out what they believe and stand for, I decided my political ideology was more in line with the Republicans. I definitely was no Democrat—that’s for sure—but I don’t really consider myself one or the other. I’m more of a Christocrat, someone who honors our founding fathers and pays them homage for being godly men at a time when wickedness was all over the world. Our founding fathers started this country and built it on God and His Word, and this country sure would be a better place to live and raise our children if we still followed their ideals and beliefs."

Highlights I selected from a book I read and blogged 11 years ago, retrieved this morning on seeing the obituary of the author. Do you recognize the voice?

Sunrise — 5:24, 5:27.

Talk about whatever you like in the comments. And please support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.

"She said she realized that the craft risked dying out when the only person left in her village who knew how to make a blouse was an 87-year-old woman."

"She asked the woman to help teach local youngsters embroidery and started a class at her home. On a recent afternoon, 16 girls sat in rapt attention as they stitched away for hours.... Teaching teenagers to stitch, Ms. Uta said, not only keeps traditional handicrafts alive, but also helps wean young people off their cellphones, at least for a few hours.... Politicians 'are all wearing fake blouses and setting a bad example for everyone,' she added. 'We need to go back to traditions but real ones, not traditions deformed by politics.'"

From "A Blouse Gets Entangled in a Political Tussle in Eastern Europe/Nationalists in Romania have adopted an item of clothing traditionally worn by villagers, particularly women. Liberals say it’s an appropriation of a cultural identity that belongs to everyone" (NYT).

1. Does it matter exactly what this blouse looks like? Here's how Henri Matisse painted it in 1940:

2. Will embroidering keep the kids off their phone? It will keep them from looking at their phone, but not, I think, from listening. What music/podcast/audiobook would you listen to if your were doing some time-consuming, detailed embroidery? Here's a playlist of Romanian popular music. 

3. What item of traditional American clothing could a political movement adopt and cause you distress like that experienced in Romania over this blouse — something you or people you like want to keep wearing and now feel that to wear it is to express support for a cause they oppose?

4. When I was young, I used to worry that various items of clothing (or jewelry) had symbolic meaning that I didn't understand and I worried about unintentionally associating myself with a cause I didn't know or understand. 

5. "Though Henri Matisse’s prolific career as an artist greatly inspired numerous pieces and collections designed by the creative legend Yves Saint Laurent, it was Saint Laurent’s interpretation of Matisse’s illustrated and painted Romanian folk blouses that became an iconic house staple for generations to come...." These days, the elite won't do that. They are controlled into submission by the phrase "cultural appropriation."

"I think the NYT has framed men as a problem. They're not thriving, they're not aspiring. We need to figure out what's wrong with them..."

"... maybe even empathize with them, because, after all, we do need them to function."

So I said, in the previous post. And one reason I said it was because I'd already opened a tab for a second article on the home page of the NYT today: "Where Have All My Deep Male Friendships Gone? I have many guy friends. Why don’t we hang out more?"

This is a long piece in the NYT Magazine, by Sam Graham-Felsen, and like the article discussed in the previous post, it assures us that there's nothing gay going on here: "I never had sexual feelings for Rob, but there was an intensity to our connection that can only be described as love. I thought about him all the time, and cared, deeply, about what he thought of me. We got jealous and mad at each other, and often argued like a bitter married couple — but eventually, like a successful married couple, we’d always find a way to talk things out."

Graham-Felsen has had many other close male friends — "nearly a dozen other dudes — dudes I spent thousands of accumulated hours with; dudes I shared my most shame-inducing secrets with; dudes I built incredibly intricate, ever-evolving inside jokes with; dudes I loved and needed, and who loved and needed me...." 

But he doesn't have dudes like that anymore. Is that because he's older, and his contemporaries are absorbed in family and work, or is it because American men in general "are getting significantly worse at friendship"?

"A social media trend has men surprising their friends with a call before bed. It has led to a lot of laughs, but also some deeper connections."

I'm reading "Men Are Calling Other Men to Say Good Night, and the Results Are Amazing" (NYT).

Calling, not texting. I'm thinking the only reason to make a phone call is to have something to video for social media. A phone call. Just to say good night?

Now, I'm going to read this article, but my presumption is that the NYT is involved in 2 things. First, it's what I've been collecting for many years under my tag "MSM reports what's in social media." What's happening in social media is considered news, partly because it kind of is and partly because the newspaper wants to seem decently hip to various trends. Second, I think the NYT has framed men as a problem. They're not thriving, they're not aspiring. We need to figure out what's wrong with them, maybe even empathize with them, because, after all, we do need them to function.

All right. I've read the article. It's written by a woman, Gina Cherelus, and "All of the men interviewed for this article said their female partners encouraged them to make the call."

"The erosion of working-class support — among Black, white and Latino voters alike — has unnerved every ideological wing of the Democratic Party."

"Ben Tulchin, a pollster who worked on Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns, said the old political calculations for how Democrats can win elections were now obsolete. 'The math doesn’t work,' he said. 'For years, the belief was Democrats have had demographic destiny on our side. Now, the inverse is true.' Some Democrats hope that this is only a phenomenon of the Trump era, and that G.O.P. gains will evaporate once the president is no longer on the ballot.... But Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist who served as chief of staff to former Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who left the party last year, warned that such optimism was misplaced. 'Trump is the symptom, not the disease,” he said. “The disease is the fact that you have lost touch with a whole swath of voters that used to consistently vote Democratic.”... [Representative Ritchie Torres, a Democrat from the Bronx said] 'I am convinced that Donald Trump is a singular phenomenon in American history.... I am unconvinced that his appeal is necessarily transferable to the Republican Party writ large. That remains to be seen.'"

From "The Democrats’ problems run deep, nearly everywhere.This is where voters shifted toward President Trump in each of the last three elections" (NYT)(free-access link, because there are a lot of interesting graphics showing the dramatic shift toward Trump (or something more than just Trump)).