The first day of Spring — 6:49 a.m.

Talk about whatever you want in the comments. And support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.

ADDED: I left this in draft overnight. Sorry! It does say "Published on 3/20/25 6:41 PM" in the sidebar, but somehow it ended up in draft. The accuracy of the post title depends on the date being March 20th.

"Democrats did worse in the 2024 election than you think. They completely failed to win over less engaged voters..."

"... who are becoming much more Republican. The higher the turnout, the more these voters show up and the worse it is for Democrats.... Low turnout is now the Democrats’ BFF!... Shor’s analysis... suggests that Trump outright won voters under 30. ... He also finds that Gen Z voters under 25 regardless of race or gender are now more conservative than the corresponding Millennial voters. So much for the Democrats’ generational tsunami. The issue landscape in 2024 was worse than most Democrats thought. The only really important issue Democrats had an advantage on was health care and that advantage was tiny by historical standards. The Democrats did have a large advantage on climate change—but voters don’t really care about the issue.... The way out is not with a feel-good Democratic playbook that leaves Democratic shibboleths intact. That hasn’t worked and it won’t work."

Writes Ruy Teixeira, in "How Deep Is the Hole Democrats Are In? Pretty deep" (Substack).

Shor = David Shor, who explained his findings here:

"The Nazi salute sh*t was insane. Honey, we're going to call a fig a fig, and we're going to call a Nazi salute what it was."

"I mean, I'll see things about him in the news and think, That's f**king cringe, I should probably post about this and denounce it, which I have done a few times.... But other than that, I don't give a f**k about him. I really don't. It's annoying that people associate me with him. I just don't have any room to care anymore. When I initially did the whole thing, when he came for me, the Jordan Peterson interview, that was the most cathartic moment of my entire life by far. I had all this pent-up energy, I had wanted to speak out for so long after being [essentially] defamed in a book, after being doxxed. Everything that had gone on — especially in my childhood — when that finally happened, it was the most cathartic experience I have ever had. And then I was like, Okay, whatever...."

Said Vivian Jenna Wilson, quoted in "Vivian Jenna Wilson on Being Elon Musk’s Estranged Daughter, Protecting Trans Youth and Taking on the Right Online/In Teen Vogue’s special issue cover story, the estranged 20-year-old daughter of Elon Musk talks about the 'cartoonishly evil' Trump administration and being a young trans woman today" (Teen Vogue).

The "[essentially]" is Teen Vogue's. I guess they're afraid the accusation of defamation is itself defamation and want to avoid seeming to be adopting that defamation. The "book" in question is, I believe, Walter Isaacson's biography of Elon Musk. What specific statement of fact has she called defamatory?

"The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive..."

"... including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech. At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled 'harassment.' Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected. Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards...."

From "A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia/Eugene Volokh, Michael C. Dorf, David Cole, and 15 other scholars/The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First Amendment–protected speech" (NYRB).

"There is certainly enough anger in the Democratic Party to create its own Tea Party. Democrats loathe Republicans..."

"... just as much as Republicans loathe Democrats, but there are important cultural differences between the parties that make a Democratic Tea Party less practical. For one thing, the Democratic turn toward more-educated voters means that the Tea Party’s anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism would be a poor fit for millions of Democrats.... Do Democrats think embracing Tea Party rage is the path back to power? Do they believe they can control that intense anger, once it’s unleashed?....  The Tea Party became a slave to its own rage. No fury was too great — no contempt was too deep — for the Democratic foe. And now we endure a presidency motivated by vengeance and spite. Opposition is necessary. Anger is natural. Courage is indispensable. But under no circumstances will we be better off if another Tea Party takes the political field."

Writes David French, in "The Last Thing Democrats Need Is Their Own Tea Party" (NYT).

"Garner" of the Day.

I don't really find a "garner" for every day. I just think it's funny to say "of the day" when the word "garner" pops up in a way that amuses me, like this one, last year. The word "garner" has delighted me ever since Meade pointed out that Jeb Bush — remember him? — said it 3 times in a single episode of "Face the Nation."

Here's today's "garner," in a question from the NYT "Ethicist" column:

A few years ago, a close cisgender male friend in a heterosexual marriage began identifying as queer. All of his romantic experiences have been with women. Through therapy, however, he concluded that gender wouldn’t have mattered in choosing a partner when he was single. He’s happily married and is monogamous with his wife. Still, he’s altered his presentation — fashion, hair, piercings, slang — to align with queer culture, and he openly identifies as part of the queer community and attends queer events. It feels as if my friend is attempting to garner the benefits and cultural cachet of being queer while also living a heteronormative life. Is this permissible authentic expression, or is it cultural appropriation?

What benefits and cachet have you garnered recently?

Not only do I get to use my "garner (the word!)" tag — I have tags for "cultural appropriation" and "heteronormativity." That feels like some kind of tag jackpot. Unfortunately, I don't have a tag for "queer." And I'm not making one. Not today.

"Ever since the pandemic, parties are not what they used to be. Instead of flitting from table to table, some guests cower with their phones in the corners..."

"... if they show up at all. People seem more excited to stay home than go out; a viral TikTok meme celebrates the relief, and delight, of plans getting canceled at the last minute. In nightlife hot spots like New York and London, clubs are shutting down. Champagne sales are tanking, according to CNN (and those threatened 200 percent tariffs probably won’t make things better). In a rather on-the-nose development, Party City, once the go-to spot for party-phernalia like themed hats, paper napkins, goody bag stuffers and shimmery banners, is going out of business...."

From "Party City is closing and champagne sales are down. Are parties dying too? 'We’re so divided, we’re so tribalized,' says one nightlife habitué. But don’t pour one out for the social gathering yet" (WaPo).

Speaking of post-coronavirus culture, the new episode of "The Daily" podcast is "Were the Covid Lockdowns Worth It?" (Podscribe): "And I was so struck at the lack of skepticism over the course of the pandemic about these measures.... In the quarters, you know, that I travel in among academics or in mainstream media. That's where there seemed to be little questioning. It was almost seen as sort of wrong or immoral to raise questions about whether this was feasible for most of the population.... Business closures... economic loss... isolating human beings who are social creatures will have a whole series of knock-on effects...."

Sunrise — 6:55.

Talk about whatever you want in the comments. And support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.

"You have a President who has sworn to get tough on the border and get tough on crime expelling from the United States — by his description — hundreds of criminal gang members."

"And so that's an easy narrative to understand. You know, who in the world wouldn't want a bunch of criminal gang members kicked out of the country? And what kind of crazy liberal judge would order those gang members back into America? And if you watch conservative media, that's the argument they're putting out. You know, this judge wants these gang members roaming around the streets, attacking your family and loved ones. You know, obviously this is terrain the Trump administration chose carefully to fight on, and they believe in the court of public opinion, most people will be on their side of this issue."

Says Luke Broadwater, in "Trump’s Showdown With the Courts," the new episode of the NYT podcast "The Daily."

The court of public opinion is part of the system of checks and balances. In the long run, the courts need public support. The law needs public support. The Chief Justice can assert that judges are neutral arbiters, just doing their job in a meticulously professional way, but if people don't believe that, it's not going to work. And if it isn't true, should you hope that people will nevertheless believe, because without the courts carrying out their traditional rituals with solemnity we're lost?

"The average American leaves 53 pounds, or $329 worth, of food on the plate at restaurants every year...."

"Changes to that number over time are hard to track.... But anecdotal evidence suggests such a change in diners’ perception of leftovers.... 'There are some people who have a thing against them.... 'People who just say, "I don’t eat leftovers," as a matter of principle.' But for others, she said, leftovers are a question of logistics. How much food is left? How many boxes are needed to take it home? How much time do I have to eat it? What am I doing after I leave?... Members of Generation Z grew up with the ability to order whatever they want, whenever they want, from their phones. Why bring home food from one restaurant when you can easily order something fresh the next day?... 'I think maybe it’s embarrassing, like you don’t want to be the equivalent of going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and putting rolls in your dinner jacket'...."

From "Is the Doggy Bag Dead? Restaurateurs in big cities have noticed a somewhat surprising shift in diner behavior" (NYT).

The article doesn't mention it, but the term "doggy bag" originates in the presumed embarrassment of taking home leftovers. It's for the dog, not for me.

The OED traces the "doggy" euphemism to a 1952 issue of American Restaurant: "It's a pleasure to hand this beautiful Doggie Pak to your patrons To Take Home Bones For Their Dog... Printed in three colors... It's class."

Then there's this line from "The Cat Who Ate Danish Modern" (1967): "'Doggie hungry. You take doggie bag,' said the caterer, and he pushed a foil-wrapped package into Qwilleran's hand." I was completely unfamiliar with the "Cat Who" series, but it looks like a big deal in the world of mysteries and prompts me to observe that nobody leaves a restaurant with a "cat bag." But then, nobody says "Who let the dog out of the bag?"

"It is more difficult than ever for a theoretical Van Gogh to become an actual Van Gogh, a familiar reality for collectors of star 20th-century artists."

"More than a decade ago, foundations for Andy Warhol and Keith Haring, and the estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat, got out of the authentication business altogether. Keeping fakes from circulating is an important task but led to lawsuits that threatened their broader work."

From "Van Gogh or Faux? Weeding Out Fakes Is Starting to Take a Toll. Attributing a work to the artist generally requires authentication by the Van Gogh Museum, but lawsuits and an influx of requests have made it reassess that role" (NYT).

I like the idea of a "theoretical Van Gogh." (It makes me want to craft a joke about a vincentretical Van Gogh.) You can imagine how many people have tried to paint like van Gogh — either to pull off a fraud or just because they love Van Gogh. And here's this guy suing over something he bought cheap that would be worth many millions if it were a real Van Gogh.

He says: "I am sure that my painting is a real Van Gogh. The entire painting radiates van Gogh. Everyone who sees it only thinks of Van Gogh." But that would be the mark of a fake Van Gogh! How would you fake Van Gogh? You'd try to make the entire painting radiate Van Gogh. The curly colorful strokes, the petals and tree trunks, the little man in the field. Everyone who sees it would only think of Van Gogh!

Sunrise — 7:03, 7:06, 7:07, 7:17.

Talk about whatever you want in the comments. And support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.

Splashdown.

In the Gulf of America.

Astronauts unstranded. 

"Just hours after President Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who sought to pause the removal of more than 200 migrants to El Salvador, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare public statement."

"'For more than two centuries,' the chief justice said, 'it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' Mr. Trump had called the judge, James E. Boasberg, a 'Radical Left Lunatic' in a social media post and said he should be impeached."

Writes Adam Liptak, at the NYT.

Liptak was reminded of something the Chief said in 2018, "after Mr. Trump called a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy 'an Obama judge'": "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.... What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Of course, that doesn't stop the NYT from telling us the name of the President who appointed the federal judges whose names arise in the news.

"Democrats seem to have no ability to stop him... So that leaves the courts, but for the courts to hold Trump accountable, to stop Trump...

"... they need for people to bring lawsuits and matters before them. And the people best equipped to do that are the big law firms in Washington. But if those firms are afraid that if they enter that fight, they could lose all of their business, Trump is then essentially taking one of his biggest adversaries off the playing field.... There are other lawyers who can bring these matters and that are skilled, but the ones with the most horsepower are potentially being sidelined. I've been reporting on this for the past week and a half, and I've learned that the leaders of these law firms have gone back and forth with each other about what to do.... Privately, they will all tell me how horrific they think this is. But publicly, they're saying very little."

Said Mike Schmidt, on "How Trump Is Scaring Big Law Firms Into Submission," today's episode of the NYT podcast, "The Daily" (link goes to Podscribe, with full transcript and audio).

And here's Schmidt's article from a few days ago: "Trump’s Revenge on Law Firms Seen as Undermining Justice System/The president’s use of government power to punish firms is seen by some legal experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong legal defense" ("With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials. That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.)

"How do I politely tell people I don’t like having anyone visit me in my home? My home is my safe haven."

"The energy of the outside world drains me, and I don’t want that feeling inside my home. This includes family members, friends, neighbors, church family and anyone else who might come knocking on my door. I have anxiety and some unresolved trauma I’m working through that contributes to this. I’m happy to meet in a public place or visit someone in their home if we are both comfortable with it. My family cannot understand why I’m like this. They think they have a right to my space simply because they are family. I don’t mind anyone thinking I’m weird, but how do I respond without feeling like I have to explain myself?"

An interesting point of view, articulated in the form of a letter to the entity known as "Dear Abby."

If you don't mind anyone thinking you're weird, just say what you feel. And if you don't want to feel that you have to explain yourself, why are you asking how to respond?

Where do people get the idea they can invite themselves into someone else's house?