"Cecil memes happened as a response to Cecil outrage, but Harambe memes happened in anticipation of Harambe outrage."

"Harambe became a referendum on and a satire of social-media-outrage culture, his name a stand-in for everything wrong with the way social media reacts to news."

"The most metal word of all is burn, followed by cries, veins, eternity, and breathe."

"The least metal word is particularly, followed by indicated, secretary, committee, and university."

What you can infer from this is that the metal English is spoken from a timeless, elemental, and darkly ethereal space, while standard English is unremarkably deskbound. Perhaps this is why we hunger for metal in the first place.

Hillary wore a white suit, but what if a man wore a white suit... what if a man wore red pants?

There was the usual chatter about whether it's sexist to talk about what Hillary wore, but the visuals are part of a politician's message, and wearing a white suit is a loud message to the eye. Of course, we should talk about it. The day after the convention, I observed that a male presidential candidate appearing at the convention in a white suit would be considered a lunatic. And what if he turned up in cobalt blue — like Hillary on Day 3 — or pumpkin or mustard — as Hillary has seen fit to do on the campaign stage. He'd be considered a clown.

And yesterday, I was listening to Tom and Lorenzo's podcast about fashion at the convention, and they were talking about how narrow the range color range is for male politicians. They don't even wear black or gray suits. The suits are all dark blue. And the wearing of white shirts is so standard that a big deal was made out of Tim Kaine's wearing a blue shirt.

But somehow I'd missed Anthony Weiner (not that they let that man on the stage). Here's something that got my attention in Maureen Dowd's "lightning round" interview with Donald Trump:

On Anthony Weiner being in the convention hall in bright red pants, calling Trump’s convention “a Dumpster fire”:

“I think he’s a pervert. It’s dangerous to allow him on the convention floor.”

Weiner wore red pants? Yes. Here's a NYT report from Wednesday, "Anthony Weiner, Often a Democratic Outcast, Is Sticking Around":

Mr. Weiner wore bright red pants, recognizable to those who have encountered him at New York City parades and festivals....

So, yeah, wearing red pants has been a trademark for Weiner. He's an outcast, of course, but even before he was cast out, he was wearing the red pants. Here's an Esquire article from August 2013 about men in red pants:

So, is Weiner's predilection for red chinos supporting evidence of a justifiable public disdain for the vermillion-legged men of the world? Or does Carlos Danger's fondness for tomato-colored pants have no real bearing on the issue? We say the latter.

Here's why: In the UK, red trousers are bound up with matters of class — as noted in the Telegraph piece, they're generally considered the realm of the posh and elderly...

In the States, though, red pants of the sort that the Telegraph is concerned with — bold, saturated, bright — aren't subject to that same sort of associative baggage. Whereas sun-faded, salmon-hued Nantucket reds may speak to the idea of wealthy Northeasterners, the Kennedies...

Interesting spelling.

... and a specifically American version of "royalty," all those other red pants are just… red pants... So, should you do it? Yes. Go for it.... Provided, of course, that you follow this one, unbelievably crucial rule: Only wear one piece of red clothing at a time.

And here's a NYT article from August 2014:

“Once they were the preserve of braying poshos,” The Guardian observed in an anti-red-trouser screed in 2012, “now they are the hipsters’ choice.”...

Whether chino or skinny jean, however, the red pant demands comment, as Anthony Weiner, then a New York mayoral hopeful, found as he stumped at a 2013 same-sex marriage rally in salmon slacks (New York magazine asserted, “Anthony Weiner’s Gay Pants Are the Talk of the Town”).

So there are other colors for men. There's red. And while we're talking about bright-colored pants, here at Meadhouse, there's green. Remember this guy:

A dialogue about those terrible things Trump says.

Trump said: "I thought Chelsea did a nice job [at the convention]. You know, Chelsea likes Ivanka and Ivanka likes Chelsea. I wish they didn’t like each other, but they do."

Prompting this dialogue at Facebook (in which I am one of the participants):

X: Trump: bringing people together (except his daughter and her friend, who he'd rather keep apart).

Y: I wonder if I could get paid as a Trump translator. I know what he means!

X: What does it say about him if he needs a translator? It's important for the president to communicate!

Y: Seems he's done pretty well with his communicating, but people who oppose him are taking advantage of opportunities to act like they don't understand him. We'll see how these cross-purposes resolve themselves.

Z: This actually makes sense, even if on first hearing it, it doesn't sound right. A lot of what he says, though, just can't be translated into anything a decent person would ever say.

Y: You reverted to pointing at all those other things after you were prompted to observe what makes sense of this one. I challenge you to focus individually on the other things and put them, one by one, through an equivalent effort. There must be a name for the logical fallacy you are committing here. Think about it. You believe there is a pile of evidence that X is true, and when you examine one item, it doesn't show X is true, so you point to that pile. It's over there....

Maureen Dowd's new column, "Thanks, Obama," is titled sarcastically.

It took me a moment to get past the photograph — Hillary encountering Obama and doing that awful gaping maw expression right into his face — and then I thought I was reading a column of genuine appreciation of the goodness of Barack Obama compared to Clinton and it took me a while to realize that the title — "Thanks, Obama" — was sarcastic.

Dowd goes back to 2008, when an Obama ad said: “Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page.” Dowd quips:

Evidently, President Obama folded the corner of that page over so he could go back to it later. Remarkably, he bought us our return ticket to the past, rolling out the red carpet for the restoration of the Clinton blurred-lines White House.

An army of idealistic young people had moved to Iowa in 2007 to help Obama beat seemingly impossible odds. But in this election, Bernie Sanders’s idealistic young people were cast as unrealistic dreamers who wanted free stuff or, according to Gloria Steinem, dates....

The president made his vote-for-Hillary-or-face-doom convention speech only 22 days after his F.B.I. director painted Hillary as reckless and untruthful.

He argued that there is no choice but to support Hillary against a “self-declared savior” like Donald Trump, perhaps forgetting that Obama was once hailed as such a messiah that Oprah introduced him in 2007 as “the one,” and it became his moniker.

In the end, Obama didn’t overthrow the Clinton machine. He enabled it.

It turns out, who we choose is not really about our souls. It’s just politics, man.

Aptly put. 

"And don’t worry, we don’t restrict our conversation to the women in attendance. We touch on everything from Tim Kaine’s unusual shirt choice..."

"... to who among the many men who gave speeches was the best dressed by far. We note the slightly unusual suit color choices made by two notable attendees, as well as the horrible way Donald Trump gets his suits cut and the shirt choices Bill Clinton makes that set him apart from most politicians. Then, it’s onto the ladies, from Melania’s scrunchie dress to Ivanka’s bold-faced money grab, to the semiotics behind Hillary’s white or Michelle’s choice of designer, to the sometimes slightly inappropriate celebrity style choices, everyone comes in for a little bit of discussion."

Tom and Lorenzo discuss convention fashion.

At the Marigold Café...

... you can only write words.

"Of course, Republicans might yet prove frightening, and were much, if not three-quarters, to blame for every ill insight, they did not deserve the Presidency, never, and yet..."

"... if democracy was the free and fair play of human forces then perhaps the Wasp must now hold the game in his direction for a time. The Left was not ready, the Left was years away from a vision sufficiently complex to give life to the land, the Left had not yet learned to talk across the rugged individualism of the more rugged in America, the Left was still too full of kicks and pot and the freakings of sodium amytol and orgy, the howls of electronics and LSD. The Left could also find room to grow up. If the Left had to live through a species of political exile for four or eight or twelve good years, it might even be right. They might be forced to study what was alive in the conservative dream. For certain the world could not be saved by technology or government or genetics, and much of the Left had that still to learn. So the reporter stood in the center of the American Scene— how the little dramas of America, like birds, seemed to find themselves always in the right nest— and realized he was going through no more than the rearrangement of some intellectual luggage (which indeed every good citizen might be supposed to perform) during these worthy operations of the democratic soul when getting ready to vote."

Norman Mailer, "Miami and the Siege of Chicago: An Informal History of the Republican and Democratic Conventions of 1968."

Live-drawing the DNC.

"Much of what I saw, I drew. But much of what I felt, I could not actually draw. My hope is that the drawings here express the giddy gravitas of the moment."

At The New Yorker, by Liza Donnelly.

She's done some other live-drawing, but she did not do the Republican conventions. Based on the other things she's live-blogged and her style, I think the RNC didn't suit her because she has a light-hearted, sweet approach and (I'm assuming) she doesn't have the relevant feelings toward the Republicans.

Back in 2010, she did a TED talk on the power of cartoons, and the page at The New Yorker with that video has a cartoon of hers showing 2 little girls — they look about 8 years old — and one says to the other "I can't decide what I'm going to be when I grow up — a good girl or a slut."

"WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, has made it clear that he hopes to harm Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency..."

"... opposing her candidacy on both policy and personal grounds. He has said that he has more material about the presidential campaign that he could release, which has raised the specter of more embarrassing disclosures just as Democrats try to capitalize on the momentum coming out of their convention this week."

From a NYT article with a headline that stresses not Assange but the Russians: "Computer Systems Used by Clinton Campaign Are Said to Be Hacked, Apparently by Russians." I don't know what helps/hurts her more, the notion that the Russians are out to get her/able to breach her security or that Assange is openly threatening to screw with her campaign, on his own terms, as he chooses to time it.

BUT: Why is Assange so antagonistic to Hillary? He's not for Trump, is he? Asked (on British TV), Assange said Trump was "completely unpredictable," but:

First, citing his “personal perspective,” Mr. Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict him after WikiLeaks disseminated a quarter of a million diplomatic cables during her tenure as secretary of state.

“We do see her as a bit of a problem for freedom of the press more generally,” Mr. Assange said....

In addition, Mr. Assange criticized Mrs. Clinton for pushing to intervene in Libya in 2011 when Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was cracking down on Arab Spring protesters; he said that the result of the NATO air war was Libya’s collapse into anarchy, enabling the Islamic State to flourish.

“She has a long history of being a liberal war hawk, and we presume she is going to proceed” with that approach if elected president, he said.

Here's an essay Assange put up last February: "A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war":

At the Pelikan Café...

... have a seat. Draw something. Say something. Or just watch and listen.

"I was going to hit one guy in particular, a very little guy... I was going to hit this guy so hard his head would spin, he wouldn’t know what the hell happened."

Said Donald Trump. Who was the "very little guy"? The NYT says:

Although this particular object of Mr. Trump’s disaffection went unnamed, he seemed to be referring to Michael R. Bloomberg. The two have traded barbs for months. In February, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, to run for president as an independent because he would “beat him.”

I'm just seeing that now, and earlier, independently, I'd arrived at the notion that Trump had been talking about Bloomberg, because I saw this tweet of his:

"Little" Michael Bloomberg, who never had the guts to run for president, knows nothing about me. His last term as Mayor was a disaster!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2016

ADDED: What did Bloomberg say that bugged Trump so much? Here's the full text of his DNC speech. I'll just excerpt:

And most of us who have our names on the door know that we are only as good as our word, but not Donald Trump. Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits, angry shareholders and contractors who feel cheated, and disillusioned customers who feel ripped off. Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us.

I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one!... Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy...  I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making....

Is the "businessman president" that Bloomberg finds appealing Bloomberg himself? You can see why Trump wants to say but I am the businessman who had "the guts" to run for President, unlike you.

By the way, I think that whether Trump wins or not, this "businessman president" idea is going to last. There are other, younger, businessmen (and women) watching and thinking about whether they should follow on. They've got the billions if they've got the guts. They are seeing how Trump is getting treated. Maybe they'll all be cowed if he's kicked around enough, but I doubt it.

"The whole affair has been a festival of inclusiveness. The media is eating it like cake.... That’s how it looks on the surface."

"And if you’re already a Clinton supporter, it probably looks great all the way down. But if you’re an undecided voter, and male, you’re seeing something different. You’re seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished...."

Wrote Scott Adams, yesterday, before the Hillary speech. He's got a theory that "the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country." He means that literally.  "And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the Democratic convention is making men feel less happy."

I'm linking to him not just because I always link to him, and not just because I've been saying the whole convention has been a "celebration of diversity and the platitudinous assurances of commitment to equality" (and I like his phrase "festival of inclusiveness"), but because I'm extremely interested in the way equality/inclusiveness/diversity is supposed to substitute for actually doing well and becoming prosperous. That problem with the Democratic Party's message jumped out at me last night when Hillary said:

I've gone around our country talking to working families. And I've heard from so many of you who feel like the economy just isn't working. Some of you are frustrated -- even furious. And you know what??? You're right. It's not yet working the way it should. Americans are willing to work -- and work hard. But right now, an awful lot of people feel there is less and less respect for the work they do. And less respect for them, period.

See the problem with the framing of the problem? People just need to feel better about what they are already doing. You could have the same bad, low-paying job but what needs to change is that you should be — should feel — respected for staying right there.

The next line was also telling:

Democrats are the party of working people. But we haven't done a good enough job showing that we get what you're going through...

How does "we" become "you" in that sentence? I thought all were in the party. But there are the real insiders — those consolidating their own party power — who are the real "we," and they need to show you — you, the people — that they care about you, because we need you to vote for us. 

... and that we're going to do something about it. So I want to tell you tonight how we will empower Americans to live better lives.

See? She doesn't say she's going to empower you to get ahead economically. The idea is "to live better lives" — which sounds like some sort of elevation of your character. You can be "better." You can be "respected."

Yes, she does proceed to declare it her "primary mission ... to create more opportunity and more good jobs" and to make a bunch of disjointed assertions like "our economy isn't working the way it should because our democracy isn't working the way it should" and "That's why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights" and "American corporations that have gotten so much from our country should be just as patriotic in return." You can diminish my point with that additional material if you like, but what jumped out and grabbed me jumped out and grabbed me.

"What's the spot on her tongue?"

Oh, my... yikes...

What she wore.

As the NYT fashion writer Vanessa Friedman put it:

In her white suit, with her white crew neck underneath, Mrs. Clinton looked supremely unflappable: perfectly tailored and in control. Not a hair out of place (but some hair nicely waved). The kind of person who could carry the nuclear codes with aplomb.

... carry the nuclear codes with aplomb....

I'd like to draw that... carrying the nuclear codes with a plum....

I thought white was a good color choice. Friedman notes it's the color Geraldine Ferraro wore in 1984 to accept the nomination for vice president and that it's traditionally held to symbolize purity.

What I noticed about the white was that it wasn't any of those other colors — like that atrocious one I thought of as "swimming pool" that she wore in her event introducing Tim Kaine.

Sometimes men wear white suits. There's Tom Wolfe and Colonel Sanders and John Lennon on the cover of "Abbey Road." But imagine a male presidential candidate stepping out in a white suit. You'd think he was a lunatic. They wouldn't say he could carry the nuclear codes with aplomb. And if he showed up in a plum-colored suit, we'd say...



... man, go.

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man you can trust with nuclear weapons."

Said Hillary Clinton on about Donald Trump, quoted at Facebook by my son John Althouse Cohen, who comments: "I'm not a big fan of either of them, but that was a good line."

My response (over at Facebook) is:

Has Donald Trump been accused of ever doing any real physical violence? Hillary has. I don't know if the stories are true. But acting out physically is something associated with her, not him. He's a man who uses vivid words and speaks with expression. She uses flat, inexpressive language, but I've read that she's thrown things at Bill. Might be false. I'm just noting that there's nothing like that about Trump. 

Here's a link to a WaPo article: "That ‘Hillary Clinton threw a lamp/book/Bible’ story has been circulating for ages."