Althouse

---

• "Greetings, Ms. Althouse. I've just shown up to your blog to discover you've stopped comments. And while my opinion is, like most, certainly meaningless..."
• I don't think that you need to rehash ending comments any further, but I just thought of this. There is a Grateful Dead documentary on Prime..."
• 6:33... oversaturated.
• "I’m not surprised that without any of that background information or context that voters would not support these changes."
• "I don’t think I’d need to give up football to do it. They film 46 days a year. I worked 187 this year in Green Bay. That gives me 178 days to do Jeopardy!"
• Justice Stephen G. Breyer said something very obvious about Supreme Court authority.
• 6:17 a.m.
• "This is an Earth-built landscape millions of years in the making. When you crush, excavate and finally smother this land with fill and concrete..."
• The same Donald Trump pudding.
• We took a walk in the Arboretum today.
• "Long-time reader, first time commenter. I love the café style blog you created and have spent way too many hours reading you and your commenters over the past eleven years."
• "How Ron DeSantis’s critics are turning him into a hero for the right"

"Greetings, Ms. Althouse. I've just shown up to your blog to discover you've stopped comments. And while my opinion is, like most, certainly meaningless..." Posted: 07 Apr 2021 02:27 PM PDT "... I thought I'd drop you a note just in case. I haven't even scrolled down further to see how long ago you made this change or why. To be honest, I was coming here less and less. And I do believe that is because of the comments. I am one of your left-leaning readers. And to be honest, I would try to slog through the comments because I think it is good for us to hear the opinions of the other side. This seemed a somewhat 'safer' way to do that rather than engaging my right-leaning parents or friends. I do not of course want to end up in an argument with them. This was like eavesdropping on someone else's family political argument. But sadly-- the number of higher quality, sober and informed comments/ opinions had seemed to plummet. And it had become a complete drag. I certainly could just choose to NOT read the comments. But I must say-- I was disturbed by the people you seemed to attract. Which I suppose is just to say that I'm disturbed by the level of our society all around. So-- all this to say, I will likely visit MORE often without the comments. You lean more to the right than I, and so I believe I will still get that 'other side' benefit. And while it would be nice if more of your followers were as interesting as you, we're just not! And while we all, including you, benefit from the interactions some times... I'm certain all this was a FAR bigger drag for you. So I agree with your lawlizard commenter-- please yo self! And thank you!" Email from Andrea.

I don't think that you need to rehash ending comments any further, but I just thought of this. There is a Grateful Dead documentary on Prime..." Posted: 07 Apr 2021 02:34 PM PDT "... and the last episode, when the Dead were carrying on the show for the fans, the fans who were becoming increasingly rowdy, BTW. The show was killing Jerry, and did kill him. The Deadheads wouldn't even buy tickets for the show, but just would show up 'for the party.' The band was getting kind of sick of it an had no way to control it. Anyway, there was a lot about that final episode that reminded me of your blog. Like I said, you have stated your reasons clearly enough, so I am not asking you to use this in any way, but just credit it to 'Tim' if you should choose to do so." That's (obviously) from the email. Here's the Amazon Prime series, "A Long Strange Trip." I've watched some of it, but not the last episode. Now, I will watch it. I have thought about my problem with the comments with an analogy to having a party at my own house.

6:33... oversaturated. Posted: 07 Apr 2021 07:53 AM PDT

"I’m not surprised that without any of that background information or context that voters would not support these changes." Posted: 07 Apr 2021 01:56 PM PDT Said Eileen Harrington, "former chairperson of the now-dissolved Task Force on Government Structure," quoted in "Madison voters widely support City Council term limits; reject full-time body, longer term lengths" (Wisconsin State Journal).  [Harrington's] work prompted the advisory questions.... In a report to the council in early 2020, the task force concluded the current system is "fundamentally unfair," particularly for people of color and low-income residents, and one that favors people with the time, resources and knowledge to participate. Harrington said she felt there wasn't a "meaningful effort" from the council to educate the public on the task force's work before the vote. Among its various recommendations, the task force suggested moving to a full-time, 10-member council with members paid $67,950 annually and elected to four-year terms. The one thing that passed — by a lot (71% to 29%) — was the proposal for term limits. The article doesn't make it clear, but I don't think term limits was one of the committee's ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like everything the committee wanted was soundly defeated. [CORRECTION: The committee did recommend term limits.] And I think what Harrington is implying is that the Madison voters hadn't gotten the message that we needed to vote for the proposals to be anti-racist. We weren't meaningfully educated, so we just ambled into the polls, read the referendum questions as written, and decided city council members shouldn't have higher pay and 4-year terms. And then we went for term limits! Was that racist? The article quotes former mayor Dave Cieslewicz: "I hope Madisonians don't just see this as something they rejected but also as something they support. I hope there's a renewed appreciation for their neighbors who step up to work on the council for little money or recognition, but just to serve the community."  As a CRT-steeped Madisonian, I've got to ask: Is that white supremacy? Is the low-pay, part-time service ideal part of whiteness? And would we have voted the other way if only we'd been sufficiently educated on that score? Or did we know we were voting for systemic racism and that's why we did it? *** There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. FROM THE EMAIL: Noting the language from the article that I quoted above — "the task force concluded the current system is "fundamentally unfair," particularly for people of color and low-income residents, and one that favors people with the time, resources and knowledge to participate" — Greg writes: Originally I thought perhaps the highlighted sentiment was simply the author of the article's inarticulate summary, but no – that phrase is taken from the text of the task force's report. Indeed, the report uses that exact phrase ["people with the time, resources and knowledge to participate"] three separate times. Seems to me that it is racism of the highest order to assume that people of color don't have the time, resources or KNOWLEDGE(!!!!) to participate in municipal government. Unrelated, but while I believe we could all be classified as racist to some degree (it's unfortunately a part of the human condition in my view), I have long held the belief that most people – certainly not all, but a substantial majority (>70%) – are not racist in any meaningful way. Perhaps I am simply wrong or naïve, but that has been my experience. Conversely, I find those who hyperventilate about racism (and seem to be able to find evidence of it anywhere and everywhere these days) often meet the textbook definition of a racist. Very Orwellian.

"I don’t think I’d need to give up football to do it. They film 46 days a year. I worked 187 this year in Green Bay. That gives me 178 days to do Jeopardy!" Posted: 07 Apr 2021 02:04 PM PDT "So I feel like I could fit 46 into that 178 and make it work. It would be a dream job for sure, and I'm not shy at all about saying I want the job. That's how I went into it. I want an opportunity to be in the mix."  Said Aaron Rodgers, quoted in "Aaron Rodgers Says He Wants to Be the Permanent Host of 'Jeopardy!'" (Inside Hook). "I feel like I bring something different to the stage — I'm the youngest of any of the guest hosts, I'd be the youngest host of just about any major game show, I bring an audience from the NFL, and I feel like I appeal to nerdy people, too, because I was a nerd in high school and got caught in that weird phase of wanting to be a jock and an athlete and also really caring about getting good grades. And at the same time, there's not many bigger fans of the show than me. I've been watching it for years and years and years. I respect the show and appreciate the history of it, and also there's my background of stepping in for a legend and their footsteps. I feel like all that combined makes me a pretty good candidate."   I love the forthright, heartfelt, humble/proud submission of an application for the job. He's such a huge sports hero, and he wants to come home to nerddom. So appealing! *** There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.  FROM THE EMAIL: Mary Ann writes: I've been watching Aaron Rodgers these past two nights on Jeopardy. I think that he is adorable, sexy and, of course, smart. However, I do not think that he has the T.V. personality to be the permanent host (so far). Too bad...maybe he'll step it up going forward? Someone has to tell him to turn on the charm and get a bit more animated. So far, he's too laid back and doesn't seem engaged enough. I live in FL so I'm not a Green Bay fan but I am pulling for Aaron... until Tom Brady decides that he might want to give Jeopardy a try! I watched the Monday episode and thought he seemed nervous and over-restrained. Some restraint is good. The focus has to be on reading the answers with precision and proper emphasis. That's crucial to smooth game play. He can't be fooling around or cutesy or at all careless. But he needs a bit more life. There is a special extra spark — a feeling of fun and humor — that Alex Trebek brought to the game. You can't try too hard for it, but you need to find it. I hope Aaron can get there, because as you say, he is so adorable and sexy.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said something very obvious about Supreme Court authority. Posted: 07 Apr 2021 06:31 AM PDT But he's authoritative, and he's pushing back liberal politicos, and he said it in a speech at Harvard Law School, so it's news, reported here, at "Justice Breyer says expanding the Supreme Court could erode trust" (WaPo).  In remarks prepared for a speech at Harvard Law School, Breyer wrote that the court's authority depends on "a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics." He added: "Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust." Some Democrats and liberal activists say that adding seats to the court is the only way to blunt the court's conservative majority. They contend it is a proper and logical response to what they say was a form of court-packing by Senate Republicans.... In other words, "some Democrats" have made it clear that they want to use the Court as a political tool, and that's exactly why it would undermine the Court's authority. These Democrats are not the counterweight to Breyer's point. They are the foundation!   "If the public sees judges as 'politicians in robes,' its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court's power, including its power to act as a 'check' on the other branches," he said.... "The court's decision in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore, is often referred to as an example of its favoritism of conservative causes," Breyer said. "But the court did not hear or decide cases that affected the political disagreements arising out of the 2020 Trump v. Biden election.... It did uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare, the health care program favored by liberals. It did re-affirm precedents that favored a woman's right to an abortion. It did find unlawful certain immigration, census, and other orders, rules, or regulations, favored by a conservative president.... These considerations convince me that it is wrong to think of the court as another political institution."  That suggests he would favor Court-packing if the Court became too predictably conservative. Court-packing is a threat, and it works to check the Court's power, but it's best to keep it as a threat, and — look! — the threat is working. If Congress carries out the threat, it will end the delicate game. You'll get your liberal Court, but everyone will see it as a bunch of political hacks, and everything it does will seem like undemocratic, elitist activism.  But surely "some Democrats" will respond: It already is a bunch of political hacks and undemocratic, elitist activism. Maybe there was a Q&A at the Harvard session, and if there was, I'll bet somebody challenged Breyer with an assertion like that. I'd like to hear how he'd put his answer into words because I've long been a big fan of Breyer's way of thinking out loud. His written speech looks perfectly banal, but when he strings his real-time thoughts together, he's magnificent. So I can only imagine how he would answer, and I can't quite figure out how to imitate his impromptu speech pattern. I supposed he'd have to subtly acknowledge that people do already think that the Court is political, but they don't think it that much, they still maintain some belief that it is principled, and if you throw that away, the liberal majority you wanted so badly will not have the clout to do all the good things you were hoping for. Best to play the long, long game and fill the openings as they arise in the general operation of the forces of nature. Then add a chuckle-worthy remark about how he's 83 and getting nudged toward oblivion.

6:17 a.m. Posted: 07 Apr 2021 06:32 AM PDT

"This is an Earth-built landscape millions of years in the making. When you crush, excavate and finally smother this land with fill and concrete..." Posted: 07 Apr 2021 02:09 PM PDT "... you destroy forever an entire interlocked, respiring and breathing community, the home for thousands of organisms living deep in the soil up to the treetops. You don't get it back."  Said the wildlife biologist Sam Droege, quoted in "A maglev would be a speedy option over protected land. But research and wildlife might suffer" (WaPo).  The question is whether there should be a magnetic levitation train connecting Washington and Baltimore. The 40-mile trip could be accomplished in 15 minutes instead of whatever it takes using the existing roads.  I have a lot of trouble understanding why it is so important to facilitate trips between Washington and Baltimore. Driving is not the only alternative to a high-speed train. There's also the alternative of not going. If the train would make the trip take half as long, I propose going from Washington to Baltimore half as often.  Haven't we learned, during Covid, how to minimize the need to shuttle from place to place? We need to reevaluate travel and commuting. It's not a rock-solid need that must be accommodated. Put less weight there, more on environmentalism. FROM THE EMAIL: Matureteach writes: I had to laugh when I read your article about the proposed mag-lev train between Baltimore and Washington. When I first met my husband, he was part of the planning team to design a mag-lev train for that route. My husband and I have been married over 50 years now, and it seems to me that if this high-speed train had been deemed feasible then or at any point since, someone would have built it by now.

The same Donald Trump pudding. Posted: 07 Apr 2021 03:51 AM PDT In "The Trump media era ends not with a wow but a whisper" (WaPo), Philip Bump observes that Trump was on TV yesterday, but probably almost nobody watched: "You probably missed it, because it was Donald Trump offering the same pudding of rhetoric we've heard so often to an anchor on the far-right network Newsmax." Did you probably miss it because it was the same pudding? Or did you probably miss it because it was on a pretty obscure news channel and you didn't notice it was on because all the big burly news sources and social media sites have joined forces to freeze Trump out? What was on those big channels yesterday? I'll bet it was their own brand of a pudding of rhetoric that we've heard so often. Or are they serving up meat? Theirs is the real news commentary. Trump's is the pudding. And you're not getting any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? *** If you want to publish a comment, you need to email it to me — here. I'll use your first name only, unless you say you want no name or some other form of name.

We took a walk in the Arboretum today. Posted: 07 Apr 2021 03:31 AM PDT Meade caught me wandering off:    I was sticking to close-ups:

"Long-time reader, first time commenter. I love the café style blog you created and have spent way too many hours reading you and your commenters over the past eleven years." Posted: 06 Apr 2021 04:57 PM PDT Writes a reader who calls herself lawlizard. The email continues:  I was sad to see that you ended comments, but having had some time to think about it, I would offer the following. I think the comment section had become less of a café to offer freewheeling conversation and thoughtful opinions and was more like a bar. For the regulars, everybody knows their name, but they also had gotten boring. I could read your post and often it would spark interesting ideas and then read the comments and too often they were just rehashing the same opinion, but tied to the latest topic. Oh look, there's the guy who thinks all women are ninnies; there's the guy who thinks everyone should move to Nevada from California; there's the guy who hates Trump; there's the guy who loves Trump; there's the guy who think America is collapsing; there's the communist who think they are all uni-party. And there's the incessant need to convince you that you, the hostess, the blogress, the free speech advocate needs to think just like them or you are not worthy, needs to find the same things interesting, needs to be on their team. And then every once in a while, some drunk shows up and has to be shown to the door and it's your job, not theirs. They sit there and rile someone up for fun, because you have to clean up the mess. Why couldn't they just appreciate you for who you are instead of trying to turn you into another mindless drone? Why couldn't they take twenty minutes to engage with the ideas and say something interesting instead of reflexively spitting out the same opinion they had yesterday? Sometimes I had something interesting to say 2 or 3 days later and it was too late to say it. I did get a lot out of the comments, so I don't want to knock them too hard. It is very hard to be consistently interesting and surprising and deep. Then the AI Big Tech people start hassling you to parse every single word and moderate them. Any appreciation for that, no, no no. They decided this is your job, not that you are the artist entertaining them daily for free with amazing content. And their excuses are weak-she should have hired an administrator, she should have changed her tech platform, she should allow co-bloggers — elevate the commenters to your status. Did they ever ask you what you want, what you wanted to see? I will miss DBQ, Freeman Hunt, Mockturtle, I will miss the tangents. I missed Laslo and Betamax when they moved on. I missed Chip Ahoy. I was trying to think of a constructive solution and thought what if you tried a kind of "open-line Friday." Take a break from the drama. Open comments, one day a week. More importantly, I would say, do what you want. Maybe after your break you'll miss it. If the comments did not spark your interest and your creativity and improve your thinking, then let them go. I greatly appreciate you and your art. I respect your refusal to prostitute yourself to either the woke or the deplorable and to remain a true liberal in the original sense of the world. I'm humbled to even be writing to you and to think you will read and value my opinion. Thank you and I will keep reading. Feel free to share my comments. You can call me lawlizard. ADDED: Another emailer:  Ma'am:  I miss the comments in general, though perhaps not all of them.  I particularly do not miss the sometimes all too numerous comments in which people feel the need to explain at length why other commenters were idiots - even when I sometimes agree, as I do not see much point to picking fights in a venue like this.  Still the comments were at times informative and even sometimes witty, so I miss that.  Of course, it being your sandbox, you are entitled to handle it in whatever way you see fit.  Thank you for your work on this. While I do not necessarily always agree with what I understand to be your take on things, you have the great virtue of not being boring, and your choice of topics and items to point out is frequently quite enjoyable.  In any case, please know that I am,  Respectfully Yours,  William....

"How Ron DeSantis’s critics are turning him into a hero for the right" Posted: 06 Apr 2021 07:09 PM PDT A WaPo column by Aaron Blake.  Over the past year, DeSantis has repeatedly found himself targeted for his coronavirus response, sometimes in overwrought ways. The culmination came Sunday in a "60 Minutes" piece that cast a spotlight on his decision to run Florida's coronavirus vaccination program through the grocery store chain Publix, which had donated $100,000 to his campaign in the weeks prior.... Even Florida officials with ties to the Democratic Party have defended the decision to use Publix, which is the state's most popular grocery chain and has also donated to Democrats and progressive causes. Palm Beach County Mayor Dave Kerner (D), whose city was a focal point of the "60 Minutes" report, said flatly that the reporting was "intentionally false" and that "60 Minutes" had declined his offer to provide a counterpoint. He said it should be "ashamed."... [DeSantis] has been among the most forceful GOP governors when it comes to keeping his state's economy open.... All told, Florida's number of coronavirus cases and the official death toll are very middle-of-the-road.... [H]e has a plausible case to make to Republicans that he's being singled out politically by nefarious Democrats and the media. He has embraced Trump, too — Trump's endorsement was big when it came to DeSantis's ascension to the governorship two years ago — but building a brand while playing upon Trumpian themes probably only makes him stronger. DeSantis is the governor of a big state, and that comes with both appropriate scrutiny and the possibility that this scrutiny will overreach. But when it comes to Republicans who can use that scrutiny to build their brands — and potentially launch a 2024 presidential candidacy based on that, rather than on Trump's good graces — DeSantis has no equal at this point. *** There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

You are subscribed to email updates from Althouse. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States