Sunrise at 5:26.

Wildflowers at 5:28 a.m.:

And a frog, semi-camouflaged, at 10:44 a.m.:

"Mr. Musk has posted about Mr. Biden on X at least seven times a month since January... Before that, he posted about Mr. Biden twice in December and not at all in November...."

"In all, Mr. Musk had posted nearly 40 times about Mr. Biden this year, compared with about 30 times for all of last year."

So it says in "Elon Musk Ramps Up Anti-Biden Posts on X/The billionaire owner of X has increasingly been using his social media platform to criticize President Biden for his health and immigration policies, according to a New York Times analysis" (NYT).

In contrast, Mr. Musk had posted more than 20 times on X this year about former President Donald J. Trump.... In those posts, Mr. Musk defended Mr. Trump, arguing that he is a victim of media and prosecutorial bias....

Mr. Musk’s posts about this year’s presidential race stand out because he is signaling a willingness to tip the political scales as the owner of an influential social media platform, something that no other leader of a social media firm has done. And Mr. Musk exerts outsize influence over the political discourse....

We're reading this in the New York Times, which, of course, has long signaled a willingness to tip the political scales as influential mainstream media. But Musk is an individual person, posting his speech as an individual, like other individuals who post on his platform. By contrast, other social media moguls avoid using their individual voice to openly say things about politics:

"Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has unexpectedly emerged as a top contender to become Donald J. Trump’s running mate..."

"... according to three people with direct knowledge of Mr. Trump’s thinking who insisted on anonymity to discuss private meetings. These people said that Mr. Trump’s other current favorites were Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and three of Mr. Cotton’s Senate colleagues: Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and J.D. Vance of Ohio...."

Writes Michael C. Bender, in "Trump’s V.P. Pageant Has an Unexpectedly Strong Contender: Tom Cotton/Donald Trump’s interest in the Arkansas senator reflects a desire to choose a running mate with experience and the ability to run a disciplined campaign" (NYT).

The former president has said privately that he views Mr. Cotton as a reliable and effective communicator in cable news interviews. Mr. Trump has also praised Mr. Cotton’s Army service, which included deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fact that he is a fellow Ivy League graduate. Mr. Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Cotton attended Harvard, earning undergraduate and law degrees....

Mr. Cotton has long been considered one of the party’s rising stars, ambition that could hurt his chances with Mr. Trump, who has undermined allies in the past when he perceived them to be intruding on his spotlight....

Bender could be wrong about Trump's determination to hog the spotlight. Trump may actually care about the ongoing project of making America great again. To a Trump hater, MAGA is at best an embodiment of Trump's ego, but Trump may want to pick the person who can carry Trumpism into the next administration and beyond. If he is thinking like that, then he'd pick Tom Cotton, don't you think?

I had Tom in mind for this purpose from just after the 2020 election:

And here's this from February 10, 2013: "I had never heard of the guy, but he impressed the hell out of me."

"There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried. There have been those days. And there are likely to be more."

Said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, quoted in "Justice Sotomayor Describes Frustration With Being a Liberal on the Supreme Court/In a conversation at Harvard, the justice spoke of her despair at some of the court’s decisions, but she urged optimism and a focus on future generations" (NYT).

“There are moments when I’m deeply, deeply sad,” she said, without citing any specific cases. “There are moments when, yes, even I feel desperation. We all do. But you have to own it, you have to accept it, you have to shed the tears and then you have to wipe them and get up.”

"The film... earned him an Academy Award nomination for best documentary and helped spur a sweeping backlash against the fast-food industry..."

"... though only temporarily; today, McDonald’s has 42,000 locations worldwide, its stock is near an all-time high, and 36 percent of Americans eat fast food on any given day.... By making himself a part of the story, Mr. Spurlock could be considered a forerunner of TikTok influencers and citizen-journalist YouTubers. And even after the backlash against fast food subsided, 'Super Size Me' remained a staple in high school health classes.... Some people pointed out that Mr. Spurlock refused to release the daily logs tracking his food intake.... And in 2017, he admitted that he had not been sober for more than a week at a time in 30 years — meaning that, in addition to his 'McDonald’s only' diet, he was drinking, a fact that he concealed from his doctors and the audience, and that most likely skewed his results. The admission came in a statement in which he also revealed multiple incidents of sexual misconduct, including an encounter... that he described as rape.... His decision to discuss his sexual past, which came at the height of the #Metoo movement, was met with a mix of praise and criticism.... 'Career death,' The Washington Post declared it in 2022, noting that the once-ubiquitous Mr. Spurlock had largely disappeared."

From "Morgan Spurlock, Documentarian Known for ‘Super Size Me,’ Dies at 53/His 2004 film followed Mr. Spurlock as he ate nothing but McDonald’s for a month. It was nominated for an Oscar, but it later came in for criticism" (NYT).

Career death, and now real death. He had cancer.  From drink? From McDonald's? We don't know. McDonald's goes on, undying. 

Sunrise on what became a very rainy day — 5:06, 5:14, 5:23, 5:29.

The saddest, loneliest Althouse blog tag: "Biden the healer."

I created this tag on November 8, 2020, and I don't create a new tag unless I think there will be a good number of other posts that will support that tag. I imagined Biden stepping up to the role of healer. I went back today, looking for "Biden the healer" in my archive, because I've been thinking how much better Biden might be doing — and, more importantly, how much better this country might be doing — if Biden had followed the path of healing — of bringing us together. But Biden was and is a divider. Maybe January 6th was too much of a temptation, such great raw material for tearing us apart. He could have said — like Lincoln — "with malice toward none, with charity for all" and forgiven everyone involved and called upon all of us — on his side and the other side — to "bind up the nation's wounds." But he didn't do it. And now it's too late.

Here's my November 8, 2020 post. Read it and weep. It's title is an eloquent quote from someone who has gone on to distinguish herself for her comical lack of eloquence:

"Joe is a healer, a uniter, a tested and steady hand, a person whose own experience of loss gives him a sense of purpose that will help us as a nation reclaim our own sense of purpose, and a man with a big heart who loves with abandon."

In that one crowded sentence, Kamala Harris — in her victory speech last night — stated the theme for Biden's presidency. 

I see the laying-on-of-hands concept that we were talking about yesterday.

"Media in disbelief as Republicans like Nikki Haley flock to Trump while Biden coalition frays."

That's the headline at the NY Post for a column by David Harsanyi.

This week, former South Carolina governor and GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley finally endorsed Donald Trump. And, boy, the news was an unpleasant surprise to a political media that’s convinced themselves Trump is the next Hitler. On outlets like CNN and MSNBC, Haley was disparaged as if she were a traitor to the American republic. The American left, it seems, continues to believe a sizable contingent of Never-Trump Republican voters can sink the former president....

"Any pretense of seriousness evaporated last week with the New York Times's expose of the Alitos' breach of flag etiquette...."

"While Justice Alito has stated that he had nothing to do with this flag hoisting, the incident, we are told, somehow amounts to evidence that the Alitos supported Donald Trump's 'stop the steal' campaign. Where does that connection come from? A search of the Factiva news database turns up no articles containing the phrases 'stop the steal' and 'upside down flag' before the Times report on May 16. Rather than retreat in humiliation, the Times doubled down this week with a follow-up report of yet another flag... spotted at the Alitos' vacation home in New Jersey. The left tells us that the 1775 Pine Tree flag was spotted among Jan. 6 protesters! And moreover, that its catch phrase, 'an appeal to heaven,' derives from a radical character —John Locke. The Times somehow fails to let readers know that the flag is a longtime symbol of independence; that it was designed by George Washington's secretary; was flown on ships commissioned by Washington; has been honored, commemorated and flown over state capitols; and is the official maritime flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...."

Writes Kimberley A. Strassel, in "A Flagging Campaign Against Justice Alito/The ‘ethics’ attack having failed, the left turns to flag etiquette" (Wall Street Journal).

"I was doing great, I was sort of like a hot guy. I was hot as a pistol. I think I’m hotter than I am now and I became president."

"I asked somebody, was I hotter before or hotter now. I don’t know… Who the hell knows? Who the hell cares? You have to always keep moving forward. And when it’s your time you’ve got to know it’s your time. And I said to myself in terms of politics, ‘You know what: we did so well in number one and we did even better in number two… we’ve got to do it again. I’m not doing it for myself, I’m doing it to make America great again...."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump brazenly asks Bronx crowd if he was 'hotter' before or after becoming president." 

That's in the Independent, which says "He is seemingly attempting to make inroads with ethnic minority voters, hoping it can bolster his support in traditionally Democratic strongholds and swing states."

Seemingly! The polls show that he has made inroads with ethnic minority voters, and he's keeping up the pressure, what with this rallying in the South Bronx. As he said, you have to perceive your hotness and move forward into greater and greater hotness. 

I watched most of the Bronx speech, and I thought he seemed especially happy to be there. New York is his town, and — telling stories about building in the city — he conveyed real love for the place. He wanted the people of his favorite city to know he cares and he can rebuild things for them — quickly — like he rebuilt the Wollman skating rink.

How threatened do Democrats feel? I'd like to know. How dare he come for their safe safe safe state of New York? He dares. He's hot. He senses his own hotness and goes for it. Who else would do that? No one.

ADDED: Are you having trouble understanding "I think I’m hotter than I am now"? Listening live, you probably wouldn't be confused. He just switched to speaking about the past in the present test. He means, at the time, back then, he thought I'm really hot. And the hotness, as he subjectively thought about it, was hotter than the hotness he has "now." And by "now," he means the entire political phase of his life, including the time, quite a few years ago, when he actually was President. It's a pretty long "now." But he had his building mogul phase, he's TV star phase, and his political phase. He was damned big — AKA "hot" — in all 3.

ALSO: Sorry for leaving out the usual hedging when I wrote: "He wanted the people of his favorite city to know he cares and he can rebuild...." Normally, I would write "He seems to have wanted the people of his favorite city to believe he cares and he can rebuild...." I don't know what's really in his head, but it just seemed irritatingly weaselly to make a thing out of that in the original post. But I did nevertheless feel I needed to pay tribute to truth in this addendum. Carry on!

"I bit her, I am not denying that. I am defending myself and the sacrament."

Said Father Fidel Rodriguez, quoted in "Florida priest bites woman during Communion scuffle: 'I am defending myself and the sacrament'" (NY Post).

You've heard of Florida man. This is Florida priest.

The Catholic Diocese of Orlando defended the priest in a statement posted online. “The woman forcefully placed her hand in the vessel and grabbed some sacred Communion hosts, crushing them,” part of the statement said. “Having only one hand free, Father Rodriguez struggled to restrain the woman as she refused to let go of the hosts.... When the woman pushed him and reacting to a perceived act of aggression, Father Rodriguez bit her hand so she would let go of the hosts she grabbed. The woman was immediately asked to leave.... Further, while the Diocese of Orlando does not condone physical altercations such as this, in good faith, Father Rodriguez was simply attempting to prevent an act of desecration of the Holy Communion, which, as a priest, Father Rodriguez is bound by duty to protect.”

Should the priest be charged with a crime? Should the woman?

There's an additional angle: "A witness claimed to police the woman was rejected because of her sexuality and what she had on."

"What is unclear is who will get paid and how much. The $2.8 billion in damages is tied to revenue generated almost exclusively..."

"... by major conference football and men’s basketball, whose athletes represent one class of plaintiffs. Another class is women’s basketball players in the major conferences. And the final class is everyone else. Going forward, the settlement means that schools could set aside about $20 million each to pay their athletes as soon as the 2025 football season. Schools will have their own decisions to make on how to distribute payments to athletes. Does Michigan, for example, want to sprinkle money among its lacrosse and cross-country teams, or plow almost all of the money into football and basketball? And will Title IX require the money to be distributed equally among men and women?"

From "Decades in the Making, a New Era Dawns for the N.C.A.A.: Paying Athletes Directly/If approved by a judge, the $2.8 billion settlement of an antitrust lawsuit would allow for the first revenue-sharing plan for college athletes. The question now: How will it work?" (NYT).

"Post about your politics" on social media... "Let your friends and family know where you stand..."

"... not just on national politics, but on local and international issues as well. Do research and share your thoughts in a respectful manner. Welcome corrections and conflicting opinions. Over time, you’ll become better versed."

That's what it says in The Washington Post, in "The new social media etiquette: Post your politics, not your kids/From Facebook to TikTok, social media norms are always shifting. These tips can help you post properly."

There's also this: "Content creators choose to share their lives or work with the world, but they are not actually your friend (usually). They also aren’t receptacles for your emotions or opinions. These nouveau celebrities don’t owe you much of anything, so there’s no sense in getting mean or demanding...."

Is this "new... etiquette"? Isn't it pretty much the same etiquette we've had all along, even before social media. "Content creators" are just another form of famous person. Only nuts — or children — imagine that a celebrity is in a personal relationship with them. 

Sunrise — 5:19, 5:23, 5:28.

"Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito noted many predominantly Black precincts in Charleston were moved out of one district and into another."

"But 'because of the tight correlation between race and partisan preferences, this fact does little to show that race, not politics drove the legislature’s choice,' he wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the justices nominated by Democrats, said the majority got it 'seriously wrong'.... Kagan warned that the majority opinion sends a message to lawmakers and mapmakers to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends. 'And so this "odious" practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue,' she wrote. 'In the electoral sphere especially, where "ugly patterns of pervasive racial discrimination" have so long governed, we should demand better — of ourselves, of our political representatives, and most of all of this Court.'"

From "Supreme Court allows disputed South Carolina voting map/At issue was whether the map was an unconstitutional attempt to divvy voters up by race -- or was permitted partisan gerrymandering" (WaPo).

"More people in the United States say they are using marijuana daily or near daily, compared with people who say they are drinking alcohol that often..."

"... according to a new study. In 2022, about 17.7 million people reported daily or near daily marijuana use, compared with 14.7 million people who reported drinking at the same frequency, said the report, which was based on more than four decades of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.... While 'far more people drink' than use marijuana, high-frequency drinking among Americans is less common.... The 2022 survey found that the median drinker reported drinking on four to five days in a month, compared with 15 to 16 days in a month for cannabis."

WaPo reports.

So does that mean cannabis is more addictive than alcohol? I searched the article for "addiction" and it only came up as the name of the journal where the study was reported.