Monday, March 15, 2021

Althouse

Althouse

"Since the end of World War II, 27 of the 38 Congresses have featured a change in the party composition of the Senate during a session."

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 01:53 PM PDT

"The probability that such a shift may occur during this particular Congress may well be even higher than that. At the moment, no fewer than six Democratic senators over the age of 70 represent states where a Republican governor would be free to replace them with a Republican, should a vacancy occur. Five other Democratic senators represent states for which a vacancy would go unfilled for months, until a special election to fill the seat was held — which would hand the G.O.P. control of the Senate at least until that election and likely for the rest of the current Congress if a Republican wins that contest. (In the case of Wisconsin, such a vacancy might not be filled until 2023.) All things considered, the odds that Democrats will lose control of the Senate in the next 22 months are probably close to a coin flip."

From "Justice Breyer Should Retire Right Now/If he doesn't, Democrats run the very real risk that they would be unable to replace him" by lawprof Paul Campos (NYT).

Here's a NYT column headline I took the wrong way: "Democrats Repent for Bill Clinton."

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 01:16 PM PDT

I thought finally — probably because of the desire to oust Andrew Cuomo — there is a demand that Democrats denounce Bill Clinton for his mistreatment of women in the workplace.

But no. The column (by Charles Blow) isn't about that at all. It's not even mentioned. Blow's focus is on "Black and brown Americans and the poor":

Two major pieces of Clinton-signed legislation stand out: The crime bill of 1994 and the welfare reform bill of 1996.

I view the crime bill as disastrous. It flooded the streets with police officers and contributed to the rise of mass incarceration, which disproportionately impacts Black men and their families. It helped to drain Black communities of fathers, uncles, husbands, partners and sons.... Part of the goal of the bill was to blunt Republican criticisms that Democrats were soft on crime....

Then there was the welfare reform bill, which Clinton promised would "end welfare as we know it."...

Nothing against Blow for highlighting these issues. I just wanted to record my reaction to the headline to underscore, once again, that the gender politics of the Democrats has been incoherent for a quarter of a century, and I have been forced to disapprove of them the entire time. 

And by the way, Bill Clinton is the first presidential candidate I voted for who actually won. I was 41 years old, so I waited a long time.

"At the very end of a Grammys ceremony that did its best to pretend like the Recording Academy has always supported and centered Black artists, women and especially Black women..."

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 12:48 PM PDT

"... Billie Eilish was put in an impossible position... Awarded record of the year for 'Everything I Wanted'... Eilish could only gush over Megan Thee Stallion. 'This is really embarrassing for me,' Eilish, a white teenager who — like many in her generation and beyond — worships Black culture, said. 'You are a queen, I want to cry thinking about how much I love you.' She went on. It was uncomfortably reminiscent of Adele praising Beyoncé when '25' beat 'Lemonade' for album of the year in 2017... . Some online bristled at the performative white guilt on display, while others applauded Eilish's apparently sincere fandom."

From "The Best and Worst of the 2021 Grammy Awards/Megan Thee Stallion owned the stage, struggling indie venues got a much needed spotlight and the event proved a pandemic awards show doesn't have to look like a video conference" (NYT).

 

ADDED: I have saved a lot of time in life by never being interested in the Grammys. When I was young, in the 1960s, the Grammys didn't recognize the great music that I liked. They seemed irrelevant and archaic back then. I have spent some of my precious time caring about movie awards, but I guess that's not happening anymore, because the Oscar nominations just came out, and I don't care enough even to consider pushing myself to write something about it.

"President Biden will hold his first formal news conference before April Fools’ Day, the White House says."

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 10:42 AM PDT

"Even if he held one today, it would be the latest any new commander in chief has faced a formal question-and-answer session with the press corps in a century.... For 20 years, presidential aides have been telling me that the news conference is high risk, low reward... [But] it's something a president can do in service of transparency and accountability even though it may not be obviously good for his political fortunes.... Presidential news conferences are hardly the apex of White House coverage. Reporters might get a sought-after moment on TV, or finally get an answer to a question they have been asking for weeks. But by definition, they don't get scoops there..... Will reporters ask smart, probing questions on important issues and get answers that matter to Americans beyond the Beltway? Will Biden shed light on his next priorities, or which issues he thinks can wait until later in his presidency? We won't know until this news conference happens."

That's from a WaPo piece titled "Biden is due for a news conference. But they can be risky." 

I'd say WaPo is defining expectations as low as possible. "Will reporters ask smart, probing questions"? My expectations on that are very low. I think they will baby him as much as possible.

"It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage, as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex."

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 10:08 AM PDT

Said the Vatican, quoted in "Vatican says it will not bless same-sex unions, calling them a 'sin'" (CNN).

The statement says that gays and lesbians, as individuals, may receive a blessing if they live according to Church teaching. But blessing same-sex unions, the Vatican said, would send a sign that the Catholic Church approves and encourages "a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God."...

The Vatican provided the assurance that "the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons."

If I'm reading that correctly, there is no "objectively ordered" way to have sex other than within a marriage between opposite sex partners. 

Cancel adjacent, Part 2.

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 09:30 AM PDT

The previous post discusses the ordeal of Sharon Osbourne who found herself in the "cancel adjacent" position. 

I observed that the new rule seems to be "that you have to proactively denounce people, or you yourself will become the target," and I linked back to a March 11th post where I learned the term "cancel adjacent." 

Now, I want to show you "Georgetown law professor resigns for 'failing to correct' colleague on Zoom about 'Black' students comment" (Fox News). 

[Georgetown law professor David] Batson appears to nod his head but mostly remains silent as Sellers is talking.... Batson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News....

Silence didn't work the first time, but he's still going with silence. He was cancel adjacent, and the cancellation did reach out and engulf him. We are in dangerous times. What will terrified "cancel adjacents" do to save themselves?

Here's the video if you want to check out how little Batson did. That's what not to do, so learn your lesson:

"What would you say to people who may feel that while you're standing by your friend, it appears you gave validation or safe haven to something that he has uttered that is racist, even if you don't agree?"

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 09:34 AM PDT

Said Sheryl Underwood, quoted in "'The Talk' goes on hiatus after Sharon Osbourne defends Piers Morgan/On Wednesday's episode of 'The Talk,' Sheryl Underwood and Sharon Osbourne got into a heated exchange" (NBC). 

I hope you have a sense of how convoluted that is. The accusation of racism against Piers Morgan is already flimsy, but Sharon Osbourne is getting intimidated for saying something supportive about her friend — as if the new rule is that you have to proactively denounce people, or you yourself will become the target. Not only is the first person (Morgan) denied a fair hearing, but the second person (Osbourne) — the one who tries to slow things and ask to look carefully at the accusation — is deemed an accomplice. 

We saw that term "cancel adjacent" the other day. Osbourne is caught on camera experiencing the terror of being cancel adjacent.

Osbourne said: "I feel like I'm about to be put in the electric chair because I have a friend who many people think is racist, so that makes me a racist."

From the NBC article:

Osbourne said she didn't believe Morgan's rejection of Meghan's admission of mental health struggles was racist. Osbourne then pivoted, claiming she was being unfairly called a racist.

While trying to go to break, Underwood became tongue-tied. As she said, "Well we'll be right back," Osbourne shot back at Underwood. "Well what?" she asked. "Well what?"

Osbourne continued to press Underwood once the show returned from break. "I will ask you again Sheryl. I've been asking you during the break. I'm asking you again. And don't try and cry because if anyone should be crying, it should be me," she said. "This is the situation. You tell me where you have heard him say ... educate me, tell me when you have heard me say racist things! Educate me, tell me!"

Underwood's response contains no basis for the accusation of racism:

Underwood explained.... "To not want to address that because she is a Black woman, and to try to dismiss it or to make it seem less than what it is, that's what makes it racist"...

Ironically, Underwood's reliance on her own intuition — Morgan seemed racist to her — is the same approach to coming up with an opinion that Morgan used — Markle seemed like a liar to him.

ADDED: To put things back in proportion:

The sky over Lake Mendota at 7:02 this morning — straight out of the iPhone, no color or light adjustments.

Posted: 15 Mar 2021 08:41 AM PDT

IMG_2989

IMG_2994 

All I did was level the horizon slightly. 

I was going to take this morning off from my usual sunrise run, but I could see the color developing very intensely and darted out at the last minute. Sunrise wasn't until 7:10, and by 7:10 the color was quite faded, into a sunrise that I'd have judged to be in the middling range of the sunrises I've seen since beginning my sunrise run series in September 2019. 

I got to my vantage point and got these pictures at 7:02, so you see it's crucial to get out at least 8 minutes before the sunrise time to catch the most vivid sunrises. I jumped up, grabbed my keys, and got my shoes on, and headed out. I had no time at all to spare, or I would not have caught this — the most beautiful of all the sunrises I have seen. 

It was more beautiful in real life. Sometimes the photos bump up the beauty of cloud colors that are too subtle to wow you in person. But this was way over the top. Not just for sunrise connoisseurs! 

I'll put up a little video for another look: 

At the Sunday Night Café...

Posted: 14 Mar 2021 07:24 PM PDT

IMG_2979 

... you can talk about whatever you want.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Generate a catchy title for a collection of newfangled music by making it your own

Write a newfangled code fragment at an earlier stage to use it. Then call another method and make sure their input is the correct one. The s...