Thursday, April 8, 2021

Althouse

Althouse

New flowers.

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 12:04 PM PDT

IMG_3455

IMG_3457

IMG_3461

The tiniest word that is recognized as a word — in the sense that there's an OED entry — is "fancyette."

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 11:36 AM PDT

It's a noun made out of the noun "fancy" — meaning fantasy or figment of imagination — and the ending "-ette" — meaning a small version of something. The OED defines it as "A little fancy" and says it's "Apparently an isolated use." The one example of the use — perhaps the only example — is:
a1834 S. T. Coleridge Marginalia in Blackwood's Edinb. Mag. (1882) Jan. 125 [Two Fancyettes, as Coleridge names them, at the end of a volume of Fichte].

So the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote marginalia in a magazine 140 years ago, and no one else has picked up this word. It's a wonder anyone ever saw it. Imagine scribbling your opinion in the margin of a magazine, adding an ending to an existing word, and having your passing fancy — your fancyette — preserved in the eminent dictionary. Just you, that one night, reading Fichte or whatever.

It's strange. How does that get to be a word? It's a wordette. See? I can make a word with a noun and an "-ette." It's easy to do. We do language tricks like that all the time. But how does it get into the OED? Is it a little joke? A jokette? ("Jokette" is not in the OED. "Wordette" is not in the OED.) Or is it something big? — massive reverence for Coleridge.

"I can say he’s a good kid — he was a good kid, and I think the football messed him up. He didn’t talk much and he didn’t bother nobody."

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 11:36 AM PDT

Said the alleged killer's father, quoted in "AP source: NFL player Phillip Adams killed 5, then himself" (AP). 

Dr. Robert Lesslie, 70, and his wife, Barbara Lesslie, 69, were pronounced dead at the scene along with grandchildren Adah Lesslie, 9, and Noah Lesslie, 5, the York County coroner's office said.... 

Allison Hope, who lives across from the Adams' modest one-story brick home, about a mile down the road from the Lesslies, said police... spent hours negotiating with Adams, using a loudspeaker....

"This is something I can't grasp yet. I can't put it all together and I'm trying to, and I witnessed it," Hope said. "I feel bad for him because if it was mental or something going on in his life or whatever, you know, he needed help, and that's the sad part." 

 [There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here.]

Before we get too deeply into mocking Kirsten Gillibrand for her expansive definition of "infrastructure," we need to look into the history of how "infrastructure" found its way into political jargon.

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 01:19 PM PDT

You've probably seen articles like "'Unicorns are infrastructure': Sen. Gillibrand mocked for definition of Biden plan" (NY Post): 

[I]n a push for President Biden's massive $2.3 trillion tax-and-spend plan, the New York Democrat attempted to pave a new meaning, tweeting: "Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure." ...

"Unicorns are infrastructure. Love is infrastructure. Herpes is infrastructure. Everything is infrastructure," Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro wrote on Twitter....

Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, wrote: "Brunch is infrastructure. Kendall Jenner is infrastructure. The Snyder Cut is infrastructure."

Biden argued... [infrastructure] "has always evolved to meet the aspirations of the American people and their needs. And it is evolving again today."

The mocking is funny, but it takes for granted that the word "infrastructure" has a solid meaning. But it's an abstract concoction, made up of a prefix, "infra-," that just means "beneath," and the familiar word "structure." So "infrastructure" is, literally, a structure under a structure, a substructure. Quite abstract and generic. The only reason the scope of the word matters is because it's taken on power within political discourse. So the question needs to be how and why. 

It's not as though there's a constitutional text that says the federal government can or should spend money on infrastructure. It's just a word that makes people feel something about the proposed spending. Then it seems to be a shortcut to arguing that we need to buy these things. Oh? It's infrastructure? Then, yes, we need it. It's a propaganda word. 

I searched the New York Times archive to see how this word took hold in American political discourse. Interestingly, it appeared for the first time in July 1950, then did not appear again until July 1951. Starting at that point, it became a very frequent word, and its new buzziness was remarked upon. 

There was a piece by Arthur Krock in September 1951, "In The Nation; Bringing the Political Lexicon Up to Date Among the Administrators At the Capitol." Krock wanted to alert readers words politicians used to con people. He wrote: "Infrastructure. An N.A.T.O. term designed to make sure that the United States will foot the entire bill."

And in February 1952, there was "Use of 'Infrastructure" Is Baffling to Acheson": "One thing I can't explain to you is how these facilities came to be called by the name 'infrastructure.'" [ADDED: That little article also calls "infrastructure" "a favorite bureaucratic morsel in the language of European defense."]

It's a propaganda word to the core. Don't give it special power to immunize spending proposals from scrutiny — whether they fit in the broad or the narrow sense of the word.

***

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.

"Because Trump is now effectively living at a private club perpetually littered with wealthy supporters desperate to show off their close, personal friendships with the former president..."

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 06:30 AM PDT

"... we can actually construct a pretty decent picture of his daily routine. It's a life full of powerful visitors, grim sycophants, and ecstatic worshippers at every turn. In short, it's Donald Trump's wildest dreams come true. "

Trashberg shows the story. 

FROM THE EMAIL: A reader named Warren writes:

Do we believe this is any different than the way the Obamas are living on Martha's Vineyard? Except it's probably more wealth and more ecstatic worshipping by liberals on MV. I've always chuckled at the almost all-white Martha's Vineyard, each home littered with Range Rovers, sporting massive "Black Lives Matter" signs.

One thing that's different is the photos and video of Obama's daily life are not making it onto social media. I'd love to see Obama get the Trashberg treatment and would definitely link to it. What Trump seems to be doing is both elite and not elite. If it were truly elite, it wouldn't get all leaked out the way we're seeing.

Scott Adams gets into a conversation with China state-affiliated media.

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 12:46 PM PDT

FROM THE EMAIL: A reader named Mike writes (and I haven't fact checked the history): 

China lies. The Central Pacific Railroad was built by free labor. The Chinese laborers were highly valued employees, in fact the CP couldn't get enough of them. They knew how to use blasting powder, they worked without the hullabaloo that the white, Irish workers created. They didn't drink and carouse. At one time they... quit and started working for another company.

Plus the fact we'd just fought a four-year war to end slavery.

See Stephen Ambrose's "Nothing Like It in The World." Great book about building the transcontinental railroad.

MORE FROM THE EMAIL: A reader named Daniel writes:

I think Scott Adams wasted an opportunity -- he caught Chinese attention, but he was more interested in making domestic points to domestic audiences than in calling out the Chinese. Randomly bringing up George Floyd using fentanyl is not about calling out the Chinese. And by the way, we've got our own problems with fentanyl behavior, between Purdue, McKinsey, over-prescribing doctors and over-dispensing pharmacies. I'd call it a big loss by Adams.

Adams seems to take every opportunity to castigate China over Fentanyl. I wouldn't have brought in George Floyd. There's an ongoing trial, and the key question seems to be whether it's possible that Fentanyl and not Derek Chauvin's knee was the cause of the death. Adams is deliberately writing as if we know the answer, and I guess that's the "thinking past the sale" type of persuasion he frequently talks about. I'm sure some of Adams's followers get off on that sort of thing.

There's also this from RigelDog: 

Like you, Adams produces content every day but in the form of a podcast. He's got a pretty big audience. It may interest you to know that he considers Chinese government to be not only the enemy of the free world, but also his, Adams', personal enemy. He openly vows to take them down in any way that he can. Looks like he is making some headway and getting some (dangerous?) attention.

He must love this.

YET MORE EMAIL: Christian writes:

Looking at China and the slavery situation, we can see how so many for so long countenanced what they even the called the evil "institution" of plantation slavery. It's not the same thing, but the dynamics are similar, and the stakes even higher, with the potential benefit to the USA lower than ever. 
The South declared war over the presence of someone they thought was a threat to slavery. If we actually managed to put real economic hurt on China (or maybe just threatened enough to push them over the edge), who's to say war with millions of Chinese and hundreds of thousands of US/allies lives won't be the cost? 
And unless we impossibly managed a modern day Sherman's March from the sea across inland China to pacify the country, we wouldn't end up making anyone more free. To say nothing of the devastating generational consequences of war across economy, government growth, families, etc. The toll is much higher than the casualty count, which would be unimaginable. 
So we do the calculations - are the wealth and prosperity gains from doing business with a bad nation, while also preventing conflict, worth permitting a terrible "institution" to continue. It's not just a question of "money". We don't develop the next MRI machine without high profit margins and high sales volumes that come from overseas manufacturing a wide range of goods across the whole economy. 
We may say one thing to assuage our conscience. But our actions demonstrate with clarity how we truly feel.

"Harvey thinks Michael is a soulless, tasteless, lying prick."

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 05:52 AM PDT

From "How Harvey Weinstein Survived His Midlife Crisis (For Now)," a 2004 article in New York Magazine. The "Michael" in question is Michael Eisner. If you care. 

I'm seeing that quote because it is in the Oxford English Dictionary, the most recent example of the use of the word I looked up, "soulless." That is, most recent for meaning 2a: "Of a person: lacking spirit, sensitivity, or other qualities regarded as elevated or human; (now esp.) lacking in human warmth, feeling, or sympathy; cold, heartless." 

I'm actually more interested in meaning 1, "Having no soul," because I was having a real-life conversation about the notion that some people don't have a soul, and whether, if that could be true, the soulless person could acquire a soul, and whether a person who regards another person as soulless has a moral or intellectual obligation to look inside himself and seriously examine whether he himself has got a soul.

I read the news today....

"Legendary Drummer Nick Barker Thinks Modern Death Metal Has Become Soulless "There's very little artistic merit these days'" (Metal Injection).

"Millionaire Sandbanks residents are at war with developers over £250m plan to build 'soulless' block of 119 flats on site of Victorian hotel where radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi set up wireless station in 1898" (The Daily Mail).

"Internet slams 'idiot' senator who tweeted graphics attacking infrastructure bill" (Raw Story)("Each of you Republican Senators is just a soulless husk void of a heart, morals, or any ideas of value-- mere grifters and racists willing to say and do anything for money, the future be damned. What a legacy"). 

"Justin Bieber Continues to Gush on the Soulless 'Justice'" (The Emory Wheel).

 "Godzilla vs Kong Review – Soulless CGI MonsterFest" (NerdFest).

"Safaree Samuels Explains How Social Media Creates Culture of Soulless Materialism and Vanity: 'The Reality Is Nobody Shows the Struggle'" (Atlanta Black Star)("Social media got 22-year-olds wanting to off they selves cause they don't make 6 figures and drive a 7 series. S–t is terrible. Got Women thinking if you can't afford a Chanel bag, you doing bad in life and offer them nothing. Got dudes thinking a good 9-5 is slavery. Nobody likes their body, nobody like their home. Just a mass group of people wanting what others have. Or pretend to have"). 

***

If you want to share your comment, you can email it to me here.

A+ on the Joe Biden Quiz.

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 05:35 AM PDT

"Say f*** it, put on a your string bikini, and imagine that you're a golddigger who created your own happy ending and is now giving all the cash you scored to the resistance behind your conser[v]ative husband's back."

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 11:56 AM PDT

That's a photo caption by Lena Dunham that appears with a photo in "Lena Dunham's most body-positive photos on Instagram" (NY Post). 

It's an interesting collection of photos with captions straining at humorousness. Though the Post assumes it's all body positivity because Dunham is, we're told, a "vocal advocate of body positivity," the text and pictures don't show unalloyed positivity. Unalloyed positivity would be inane. And inconsistent with comedy.

If inane, uncomic expression of the experience of female embodiment is what you want, read this other NY Post article, "Khloé Kardashian breaks silence, talks body image struggles after unwanted photo saga." 

Kardashian has a problem with the publication of a photograph of her in a bikini looking like a reasonably nice, ordinary woman. It runs counter to her public image as a beautiful woman, part of a beautiful-women family. How can she fight that without expressing negativity about her body, making the ordinary women of the world feel bad about themselves, and looking like she's on the wrong side of the body-positivity movement? Here's the quote she (or her people) came up with:

"The photo that was posted this week is beautiful. But as someone who has struggled with body image her whole life, when someone takes a photo of you that isn't flattering in bad lighting or doesn't capture your body the way it is after working so hard to get it to this point — and then shares it to the world — you should have every right to ask for it to not be shared — regardless of who you are."

FROM THE EMAIL: A reader named Roz writes: 

Lena Dunham displays her unfortunately grotesque physique (nttawwt,) semi-humorously while one of the Kardashian girls asks for a photo to not be published because it is not a perfectly edited photo of her rather gorgeous looking body. Each woman has body positivity issues. Which one is more screwed up?

My vote is for Dunham. The Kardashian girl actually works out and takes care of her health so if I had to make a judgment I'd say she has more positivity towards her body and is in fact a healthier person, she's a better role model.

Of course this could be due to genetics and she had a head start, but Dunham revels in her obesity which is not healthy. Even if you have a positive attitude towards your obesity you are more prone to diabetes and that's not good.

Dunham suggests someone who is a golddigger give her money to the resistance? That's kind of a twisted unrealistic mind imo it's lame humor. The golddigger depends on "her man" for her income and her lifestyle so she's the last person who is going to upset the system which keeps her in appointed in Gucci and LV. Dunham is actually insulting women who exploit the assets she doesn't possess.

I don't think that Dunham's self deprecating humor and exhibitionism under the guise of being a body positivity activist is a sign of health either. Imo it's a sad need for attention from someone who grew up in a household with famous parents. Maybe some women can get encouragement from the thought that if Dunham can look like that and feel good about herself then what am I complaining about?

I don't know which one is more screwed up, but I do think Dunham has done more with her mind. And I care more about how these 2 contributors to the pop culture have helped or hurt the consumers of the material they've created. Which one has screwed other people up the most? I think the Kardashians have done more harm, with so much shallowness, artificiality, and conformist beauty obsessions. Dunham isn't fooling anyone into thinking it's not unhealthy to be obese. She's showing herself as she is and as many people — not hiding herself away. 

I agree that the golddigger fantasy is inconsistent with feminism, but that does make it transgressive — for a feminist. It would be more transgressive if the rich husband wasn't conservative.

 

I've been monitoring men in shorts for a long time, and I have my standards... my evolving standards...

Posted: 08 Apr 2021 05:36 AM PDT

So what am I to make of this? At the link:
The 85-year-old Libertarian inadvertently gave the glimpse of his liberally cut short shorts in the last seconds of a video chat on political issues with host Doug Casey. The men had finished discussing the future of personal liberty, when Paul rolled his chair back from the camera and showed just how much liberty his tiny jeans allowed his slightly tanned, thighs to enjoy.
First, I'm more bothered by the comma after "slightly tanned" — "his slightly tanned, thighs." My guess is they had another adjective after "tanned" but they took it out for some reason. Maybe it was "slightly tanned, skinny thighs" or "slightly tanned, hairy thighs" and they backed off, ashamed of their body shaming. "Tanned" was okay, but the rest — I imagine they decided — was the kind of judgementalism that could get them in trouble. But the telltale comma remained.

Second, I'm going to give Ron Paul a pass. It's a totality of the circumstances analysis: 1. He's 85, so I give him extra room to find whatever ways he can to greater physical ease. 2. He's at home, not out in the world displaying disregard for the aesthetic experience of others. 3. He didn't intend his lower body to be seen, but he refrained from outright nakedness or mere underpants. 4. He's a libertarian, so his theme is freedom, and the shorts express his idea of freedom (though if I were looking for freedom in a pair of shorts I'd pick something more pliable and flowy). 5. He amused us.

***

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 and I'll identify you with your first name only. 

IN THE EMAIL: A reader named Julie writes: 

Best men in shorts post to date! Not only has it been a funny little joy for us all to have you share this shorts obsession with us for years, but also because we COVID weary souls in our home offices totally relate with Ron Paul. I spend hours every week in video conferencing, often with executives I have never met before. Whenever the mood at the start of a video call is bright enough and I am looking for an ice breaker, I make a joke of the fact that my professional on-camera blouse does not match my fraying sweatpants off camera. EVERY SINGLE TIME the professional on the other side reveals a similar predicament and we have a good laugh. It's become a new form of rapid trust building.

6:39 a.m. and 6:41 a.m.

Posted: 07 Apr 2021 06:57 PM PDT

IMG_3511

IMG_3516

Campus today.

Posted: 07 Apr 2021 03:03 PM PDT

IMG_3541 

Note the forsythia in the background. There's lots of forsythia blooming around campus, so if yellow is your favorite color, now is your time:

IMG_3529 

And I got my own view of the brutalist building that dropped a slab of concrete on that walkway: 

IMG_3536

"I had to email you, because the photo you posted of Meade catching you 'wandering off' bears an uncanny resemblance to the park in Antonioni's great film Blow-Up."

Posted: 07 Apr 2021 02:54 PM PDT

"In the film, the protagonist surreptitiously photographs a rendezvous in the park. And then as he keeps 'blowing up' the prints, i.e. zooming in, he starts to think he's witnessed a murder. I thought you'd appreciate the similarity of the images! By the way, I've been reading your blog every single day for years and years. Huge fan. I love that you never skip a day, even holidays. Also by the way, I completely agree with the decision to stop comments. The commenters were often rude and obnoxious, and to the extent they drew you into conflicts and took your attention away from other things, that was a waste of your time. And your time matters to your audience -- us! I agree with the person who emailed you saying the comments had become male-dominated (I would say misogynistic). Which seems to be a theme in online comments sections. Those commenters were a tiny sliver of your audience, and frequently an unsavory sliver. Thanks for everything you do! Please don't stop! The Althouse blog is a daily delight."

That's email from someone with the first name Paul. Thanks, Paul!

Here's the shot from "Blowup":

And here's Meade's shot of me: 

IMG_5590
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

What makes an Instant Coffee "Premium"?

It's in the beans and packing process͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ͏‌  ...